Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community (https://www.overclock.net/forum/)
-   Intel - General (https://www.overclock.net/forum/8-intel-general/)
-   -   [Official] - Xeon X5660-X58 Review & Discussion [and Xeon L5639 benchmarks inside] (https://www.overclock.net/forum/8-intel-general/1461359-official-xeon-x5660-x58-review-discussion-xeon-l5639-benchmarks-inside.html)

Kana-Maru 01-22-2014 07:41 PM

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 01-22-2014 07:42 PM

Ladies and gentlemen, with all of that said I will post more benchmarks as I complete them.

RushiMP 01-22-2014 07:43 PM

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


Kana-Maru 01-22-2014 07:45 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by RushiMP View Post

I like this post.

That was fast. Lol thanks.

ssgtnubb 01-22-2014 07:53 PM

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.

DarthMuse 01-22-2014 10:28 PM

Nice but according to Intel on X79 the Max DMI2.0 bandwidth is 51.2GB/s

jlhawn 01-22-2014 10:39 PM

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.

avesdude 01-22-2014 10:53 PM

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.

mechwarrior 01-22-2014 11:03 PM

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.

rezax58 01-23-2014 07:39 AM

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!

PontiacGTX 01-23-2014 08:13 AM

what about some gaming? i7 lga1155/1150 vs Xeons

I really need that info

RushiMP 01-23-2014 08:22 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by PontiacGTX View Post

what about some gaming? i7 vs Xeons

I really need that info

 

Yes please.


Kana-Maru 01-23-2014 02:03 PM

Sorry for the late reply guys. Alright I'm going to post a reply to everyone I missed earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthMuse View Post

Nice but according to Intel on X79 the Max DMI2.0 bandwidth is 51.2GB/s

I got the info directly from Intel's website. X58 has DMI as well, but it uses it in a different way [sort of]. DMI 2.0 uses x4 link I believe and Intel states 20 GB\s on their diagrams and in their offical PDF. There was pretty lenghty revised PDF on both the X58 and X79. Intel also said that the X79 only supports PCI-E 2.0. PCI-E 3.0 depends on the CPU. Then again they could just be throwing the PCI-E 3.0 out there to make current and potential X79 users feel better about their purchase. Who knows it IS Intel you know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mechwarrior View Post

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.

No problem man. I put A LOT OF TIME into this review and I still have a lot of more things to add to this review. Things like pictures of the results and more tests I haven’t gotten around to posting. Making the charts were a pain at first, but I’m used to it now. I'm going to be adding the Gaming Benchmarks veru soon. I’m going to upload my 3DMark data first. I'm running two GTX 670s as well. So please post your scores in 3DMark 11, 3DMark Vantage and 3DMark [all test – Fire strike etc] and I'll compare them in my review. I could really use more i7-920 data especially for gaming.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rezax58 View Post

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!

Hey man it was no problem at all. The latest and greatest i7-4960X only has one extra Instruction Set that the X5660 doesn’t have; and that is the “AVX” Instruction . The other major difference is the architecture itself. Instead of revising the X58 architecture, Intel just came out with the X79 altogether. It appears that the X99 could follow suit and use the same LGA2011[-3] socket [R]. I’m glad I didn’t run out and spend a ton of money when I thought heavily on the X79. Hardware-wise there isn’t much different. They overclock to about the same speed unless you have some serious cooling go higher than 4.8Ghz. Speaking about the software behind it; I believe a lot of people have been claiming bias against Intel+benchmarks. I think I was reading something about Cinebench a while ago.

AMD has been claiming this for a while and was right back in the day. I’m hoping AMD can get it together and get over the Intel hump. That’s going to be hard since some programs are specifically written to run slower on non-Intel CPUs . I’m hoping this still isn’t the case, but it appears AMD can never catch up. Cinebench is featured on Intel’s website as well so that should make you think a little bit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PontiacGTX View Post

what about some gaming? i7 lga1155/1150 vs Xeons

I really need that info

Coming very soon. I’ll try to get some of the data posted tonight along with pictures. I’d have to find similar setups if I can, but I’m going to post them anyways and update later. You guys can fell free to compare the scores to yours. I'm running the 2GB GTX 670 2-Way SLI. I'm looking to upgrade to a 7990 Quad or something better soon. GTX 670 2-Way is doing fine right now.

Vlasov_581 01-23-2014 02:11 PM

great job on this thumb.gif

PontiacGTX 01-23-2014 02:57 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kana-Maru View Post

Sorry for the late reply guys. Alright I'm going to post a reply to everyone I missed earlier.
Coming very soon. I’ll try to get some of the data posted tonight along with pictures. I’d have to find similar setups if I can, but I’m going to post them anyways and update later. You guys can fell free to compare the scores to yours. I'm running the 2GB GTX 670 2-Way SLI. I'm looking to upgrade to a 7990 Quad or something better soon. GTX 670 2-Way is doing fine right now.
yes who has an i7 sb/ib/hw please share your performance`s result with the OP please


And a question does these x56xx reach 4.7ghz usually?

RushiMP 01-23-2014 03:12 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by PontiacGTX View Post


yes who has an i7 sb/ib/hw please share your performance`s result with the OP please


And a question does these x56xx reach 4.7ghz usually?

 

I have had 3 overclocked hex core Westmere Xeons, mostly X5650s. They have all overclocked to 4.4-4.6 with around 1.35-1.4V. None reliably beyond that, the BCLK starts to get tricky.


Kana-Maru 01-23-2014 03:15 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by PontiacGTX View Post

yes who has an i7 sb/ib/hw please share your performance`s result with the OP please


And a question does these x56xx reach 4.7ghz usually?

Well I can't speak for them all, but they have plenty of headroom. Well at least my X5660 does. If you have good cooling and a good MB+CPU+RAM you shouldn't have a lot of issues. The vCore will be the tell tale. I was lucky enough to hit 4.6Ghz 0.04v outside of Intel max recommendation [1.35v]. Expert overclockers shouldn't have a issue with these CPUs though. Increasing the BLCK to 200 will get you 4.8Ghz with C-states enabled. 191 BLCK will net you around 4.6Ghz. Hopefully you can maintain that with decent vCore [4.6Ghz]. Outside of benchmarking....you'll only need around 4Ghz on a daily basis. If you are running high end graphic card like Quad\SLI\Crossfire X then 4.2-4.4Ghz would be better.

PontiacGTX 01-23-2014 03:16 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by RushiMP View Post

I have had 3 overclocked hex core Westmere Xeons, mostly X5650s. They have all overclocked to 4.4-4.6 with around 1.35-1.4V. None reliably beyond that, the BCLK starts to get tricky.
Well do you have sone i7 for testing?

Kana-Maru 01-23-2014 03:19 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by RushiMP View Post

I have had 3 overclocked hex core Westmere Xeons, mostly X5650s. They have all overclocked to 4.4-4.6 with around 1.35-1.4V. None reliably beyond that, the BCLK starts to get tricky.

I've never had issues with the BLCK on my rig. My biggest issue is the amount of voltage it takes to run more than 5Ghz. Going over 200 or 215 might be a issue on some motherboards.

PontiacGTX 01-23-2014 03:29 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kana-Maru View Post

I've never had issues with the BLCK on my rig. My biggest issue is the amount of voltage it takes to run more than 5Ghz. Going over 200 or 215 might be a issue on some motherboards.
which mobo do you recommend for the xeons x5650s?that could reach your frecuency

Kana-Maru 01-23-2014 03:59 PM

I can only suggest the Asus Sabertooth X58. It's the only board I have used for years. I'm used to the board, but it might be overwhelming to new users. It does offer some nice settings and features.

PontiacGTX 01-23-2014 04:05 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kana-Maru View Post

I can only suggest the Asus Sabertooth X58. It's the only board I have used for years. I'm used to the board, but it might be overwhelming to new users. It does offer some nice settings and features.
i would like a cheaper mobo.hiw much that sabertooth costs?

Bonn93 01-23-2014 04:08 PM

I've come from your other thread, such a good job on everything. The X58 platform still performs and surprises everyone.

I'm trying to find a 6 core now!

Kana-Maru 01-23-2014 04:40 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by PontiacGTX View Post

i would like a cheaper mobo.hiw much that sabertooth costs?

Thanks to the widespread news of the hex cores, USED Asus Sabertooth X58’s have increased in price. It’s going to be hard to find a cheap one now. Anywhere from $230-$300+ is what I’ve been seeing since late last year. Sabertooth X58 were as low as $110-150, but not anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonn93 View Post

I've come from your other thread, such a good job on everything. The X58 platform still performs and surprises everyone
I'm trying to find a 6 core now!

Thank man! X58 users should unite. We are still using an extremely viable platform that can still run any graphic card released today. I’m sure the platform does surprise everyone, which is probably why the X58 boards have been skyrocketing over the past year or so. I saw a Sabertooth X58 for $800 brand new on Amazon. Funny thing is someone actually purchased it. Now there’s only 1 for $229.99. I’m going to posting my gaming benchmarks soon.

A lot of the 6-cores have been selling out all across Ebay. Good luck man. I hope you find a nice chip one that's good and not defective.

Vlasov_581 01-23-2014 06:33 PM

yea prices are hella low on the x5XXX series. on eBay you can grab an SR-2 for $350ish, and 2 x5650s for $250ish for both, and have a 12C/24T computing monster eek.gif

PontiacGTX 01-24-2014 05:41 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlasov_581 View Post

yea prices are hella low on the x5XXX series. on eBay you can grab an SR-2 for $350ish, and 2 x5650s for $250ish for both, and have a 12C/24T computing monster eek.gif
where do people sell their sr 2?

Kana-Maru 01-24-2014 01:28 PM

Alright I've gotten getting my GPU\Gaming Benchmark scores together. I will be updating my post on the first page with all new info I post throughout this topic. I've taken the L5639 info from my L5639 topic and compared both processors - here:

The L5639 topic is here:
https://www.overclock.net/t/1442498/x58-in-2014-i-was-thinking-about-upgrading-to-x79-or-haswell-l5639-comparison-review

Alright here are my Gaming Benchmarks. I will post more benchmarks as I complete them. I’m going to be comparing my X5660, L5639 and i7-960 benchmarks. If you would like to compare your scores please post them. I tried to remember some my i7-960 scores. 4Ghz-4.2Ghz is all most gamers will need anyways with Hex-cores. The X5660 will be a better choice if you stream games online in HD. It should be able to handle the load and specific settings in certain streaming programs for high end CPUs.

GTX 670 2-way SLI @ 980Mhz [except 3DMark Cloud Gate and Vantage which was ran @ 915Mhz]

3DMark 11:



[email protected] = P16449
[email protected] = P15692
[email protected] was around P12000-P13000

Looks like the GTX 670 2GB 2-Way SLI is pushing max with the Hex cores. The X5660 increased my Graphics [+174 points], Physics [+1,736 points] and Combined Score [+809 points]. If I could get both GPUs to run @1000Mhz+ I’m sure I could probably crack the 17000 mark. The benchmarks were smooth with Hex-CPUs. To the naked eye I couldn’t notice any difference. My GPUs are running on air so heat did become an issue.

3DMark Vantage:



[email protected] = P47325
[email protected] = P45164

Here is another minor difference in score.

3DMark Ice Storm:



[email protected] = P197876
[email protected] = P173914
i7-960 @ 4Ghz = P157635

Now we can see some bigger differences in the score and performance %. The X5660 scored 26% higher than the i7-960. The X5660 performed 14% better than the L5639. The X5660 performed pretty good with the GTX 670s @ 960Mhz.

3DMark Fire Strike:



[email protected] = 11205
[email protected] = 10900
[email protected] = 9787

Using Hex cores definitely makes the benchmark much smoother. The X5660 offered a 14.4% increase over my [email protected] and only 2.7% over the L5639. Fire Strike depends on the GPU.

Kana-Maru 01-24-2014 01:30 PM

Real Time Benchmarks

The real time benchmarks are games that I have played while capturing real time data. Instead of relying on a benchmark tool found in a lot of games nowadays, I play through the levels looking for micro stutter and or delays. The L5639 handled Maxed High End games like Crysis 3, Tomb Raider and Metro: LL etc. Let's see how the X5660 handle Crysis 3,

GTX 670 2-Way SLI @ 915Mhz

Welcome to the Jungle - 1920x1080p

[email protected]
CPU Max Temps:58c
GPU 1: 83c
GPU 2: 71c

Those temps were pretty much steady throughout the benchmark and gameplay. Due to heat concerns I had to run the GPU cores @ 915Mhz instead of 980Mhz.



FPS:
Avg: 53
Max: 136

Min: 18

As you can not much has changed in this category. I actually gained 3 frames per second and the frame rate was well above 60fps throughout the level. I’m guessing it’s safe to say that 4Ghz-4.2Ghz will be fine for high end gaming with the Hex cores. With no more CPU bottlenecking I’ve finally hit the max on my graphic cards. I was only getting 25fps to 35fps with my [email protected] Two extra cores make a huge difference. The L5639 and X5660 is fine for high end gaming.




Average Frame time: 19ms
My frame times were slightly better. The game played fine on both CPUs. The higher clocked X5660 gave it a edge over the L5639. However, I’m sure if both CPUs were clocked at the same speed the difference wouldn’t matter. just as they do not now. So i7-920 to i7-960 and pretty much all Bloomfield users will see a tremendous upgrade. Gaming wise there is no comparisons.

PontiacGTX 01-24-2014 03:09 PM

People with SB/IB/HW give your results

OP could you test BF4,BF3,Crysis 1,2,3,Metro LL,Metro 2033,Alien vs predator 3,Grid 2,CIV 5,Starcraft II?

Kana-Maru 01-24-2014 04:47 PM

I don't have BF3 or BF4.

PontiacGTX 01-24-2014 04:50 PM

What if I borrow you my origin account?For bf3 and crysis 2.btw is it allowed by origin?

Kana-Maru 01-24-2014 05:09 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by PontiacGTX View Post

What I borrow you my origin account?For bf3 and crysis 2.btw is it allowed by origin?

I'm not sure if it's allowed by Origin, but check your Private Messaging for more info.

DarthMuse 01-24-2014 06:06 PM

How much did the X5660 cost you?

ssgtnubb 01-24-2014 06:20 PM

90 on amazon

kremtok 01-24-2014 07:51 PM

After reading your review here, I'm strongly considering getting an X5660 to replace my i7 970 due to the power savings and potential for higher clockspeeds. How would you say the two CPU compare? Anything I should know about in considering the switch?


Kana-Maru 01-25-2014 03:36 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by kremtok View Post

After reading your review here, I'm strongly considering getting an X5660 to replace my i7 970 due to the power savings and potential for higher clockspeeds. How would you say the two CPU compare? Anything I should know about in considering the switch?

Well what is your i7-960 clock speed and vCore settings? Also post some of your Cinebench R10, R11.5 and R15 benchmarks. You can also post other benchmarks as well [like 7-zip v9.20, WInZip v4.20, Performance Test 8 etc]. There's really nothing special to know about the CPUs. they are used and requires decent cooling at higher speeds just like any other Hex Cores.

Kana-Maru 01-25-2014 03:49 PM

BF3 is one of the most gorgeous FPS I’ve played. There are a lot of great looking games. EA isn’t my favorite companies, but they definitely invest in their studios. It was requested to be benchmarked. I also have to thank PontiacGTX for allowing me to benchmark this game on Origin. It took me 2 hours to download 20.3GBs of data. It was worth it. I ran the benchmarks in 1600p, 1080p and 720p. There are a lot of charts, but I’m not going to post the charts. It’s way too many charts.



All benchmarks were tested with Max Settings. My GPUs were at stock settings.
GTX 670 2GB 2-Way SLI @ 1228Mhz.


While playing @ 1600p
X5660 @ 4.6Ghz
CPU: Max: 52c
GPU 1: Avg. 70c - Max: 76c
GPU 2: Avg. 65c - Max: 72c

Semper Fidelis [Campaign] @2560 x 1600p:

Gameplay Duration: 3 minutes 21 secs
Captured 14,690 frames
FPS Avg: 73fps
FPS Max: 110fps
FPS Min: 30fps
Frame time Avg: 13.7ms

The game plays great at 1600p. No micro stuttering at all. The input lag and everything was smooth. My highest frame time was 33.0ms, which is no problem at all to me. The Average was 13.7ms which is great. The game is still gorgeous and will be for a very long time. This was level so make your judgment from the other benchmarks.
All Benchmarks were

Operation Swordbreaker [Campaign] @ 2560 x 1600p:
Gameplay Duration: 26 minutes 25 secs
Captured 123,237 frames
FPS Avg: 78fps
FPS Max: 120fps
FPS Min: 34fps
Frame time Avg: 12.9ms

Caspian Border [Multiplayer – Conquest 32v32] @ 2560 x 1600p:
Gameplay Duration: 23 minutes 29 secs
Captured 95,475 frames
FPS Avg: 66fps
FPS Max: 106fps
FPS Min: 34fps
Frame time Avg: 15.2ms

Operation Metro [Multiplayer – Conquest 32v32] @ 2560 x 1600p:
Gameplay Duration: 13 minutes 1 secs
Captured 58,831 frames
FPS Avg: 75fps
FPS Max: 112fps
FPS Min: 41fps
Frame time Avg: 13.3ms

Noshahr Canals [Multiplayer TDM 32v32] @ 1920x1080p:
Gameplay Duration: 21 minutes 49 secs
Captured 185,190,frames
FPS Avg: 141fps
FPS Max: 201fps
FPS Min: 76fps
Frame time Avg: 7.07ms

Operation Metro [Multiplayer – Conquest 32v32] @ 1280x720:
Gameplay Duration: 25 minutes 50 secs
Captured 265,517 frames
FPS Avg: 171fps
FPS Max: 201fps
FPS Min: 90fps
Frame time Avg: 5.86ms


Now as you can see the GTX 670 2GB SLI manhandles the Frostbite 2 engine. I’ll probably get around to testing the Frostbite 3 engine if I ever get man hands on the game. I will be posting more Real Time Benchmarks soon.

PontiacGTX 01-25-2014 04:28 PM

Can someone borrow him bf4 for testing the cpus?

I forgot to remember you that 720 is 1280x720.ops

Well I hope you do thing as this with cryisis 2

+rep (again) for the job

Kana-Maru 01-25-2014 04:38 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by PontiacGTX View Post

Can someone borrow him bf4 for testing the cpus?

I forgot to remember you that 720 is 1280x720.ops

Well I hope you do thing as this with cryisis 2

+rep (again) for the job

Sorry about that typo. I just fixed the 720p resolution. Thanks for the rep man and thank for the help with the games [BF3 and Crysis 2: ME]

PontiacGTX 01-25-2014 04:45 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kana-Maru View Post

Sorry about that typo. I just fixed the 720p resolution. Thanks for the rep man and thank for the help with the games [BF3 and Crysis 2: ME]
Can someone borrow him bf4 for testing the cpus?


That`s not your fault.it`s the Enthusiasm of sharing your job,the nerves of the people that does something useful and wants the good of the followers

kremtok 01-25-2014 05:10 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kana-Maru View Post


Well what is your i7-960 clock speed and vCore settings? Also post some of your Cinebench R10, R11.5 and R15 benchmarks. You can also post other benchmarks as well [like 7-zip v9.20, WInZip v4.20, Performance Test 8 etc]. There's really nothing special to know about the CPUs. they are used and requires decent cooling at higher speeds just like any other Hex Cores.

 

Sorry, but mine is the i7 970, a hex-core Gulftown. My system is stable at 4.25GHz and shows 1.376V at idle in CPU-z. I was just wondering if there's a substantial difference between it and the X5660, other than that the X5660 has a lower TDP and you seem to clock yours a lot higher than I've seen any other hex-core Intel CPU.


Kana-Maru 01-25-2014 08:14 PM

I'm sorry I meant to type i7-970, not 960. Some say that I've clocked my L5639 higher than most with the x18 multiplier as well. After so many years on the same platform I guess I'm just OC'ing everything in sight. The 32nm are easy to damage from what I've read and experienced. I'm sure others have clocked the Hex cores higher. It's just tricky as hell. The X5660 is better for several reasons. A few being that the QPI Speed is higher on the X5660. X5660 has two QPI links which will allow you to run dual CPUs. It runs pretty cool as well so you don't have to worry about the fans RPM revving up. So far it's one of the best CPUs I've owned to date.

I originally planned to include more i7-970 data initially. I focused more on the high-end SB-E + IVB-E and Haswell. You can run some test and post them here for comparisons if you want. I would love to see your Cinebench 10\R11.5\R15 scores at your current speed. What's the speed of your RAM by the way?

DarthMuse 01-25-2014 08:53 PM

BF4 looks slightly better than BF3 however I like some things about BF3 better overall I think it was more polished and balanced and I liked sniping more on it, where as BF4 isn't as fun but is still good..

kremtok 01-25-2014 10:23 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kana-Maru View Post

I'm sorry I meant to type i7-970, not 960. Some say that I've clocked my L5639 higher than most with the x18 multiplier as well. After so many years on the same platform I guess I'm just OC'ing everything in sight. The 32nm are easy to damage from what I've read and experienced. I'm sure others have clocked the Hex cores higher. It's just tricky as hell. The X5660 is better for several reasons. A few being that the QPI Speed is higher on the X5660. X5660 has two QPI links which will allow you to run dual CPUs. It runs pretty cool as well so you don't have to worry about the fans RPM revving up. So far it's one of the best CPUs I've owned to date.

I originally planned to include more i7-970 data initially. I focused more on the high-end SB-E + IVB-E and Haswell. You can run some test and post them here for comparisons if you want. I would love to see your Cinebench 10\R11.5\R15 scores at your current speed. What's the speed of your RAM by the way?

 

That's quite insightful, thank you.

 

I've never benched before, but if the software is free I suppose that I can run a few passes for you to use in your comparisons. Memory is 1333MHz / 9-9-9-24.


cyanmcleod 01-26-2014 04:06 AM

how can you find out if your board supports them x5660? trying to find some info on it but not much out there. i have the ASUS P6X58D-E LGA, shows support for the 990x so i would assume it could use this cpu? if so that is awesome for a cheap upgrade!

SpacemanSpliff 01-26-2014 04:36 AM

Well done man.. reading this makes me wish I would have held onto one or two of the handful of X5660s and X5670s I came across a few years ago and followed through with making a rig based around it. Unfortunately at the time I was going to build, I had gotten laid off from my job as the company downsized by a third. I managed to sell all 8 (4 each) of them on ebay in less about 4 hours for a very nice little chunk of change that got me through the 6 months before I got back to school though.

BOT, it's crazy to see how well 4 year old Xeons can still hang in there with the IB-E though.

KingG14 01-26-2014 05:09 AM

Awesome thread! is the X5650 unlocked like the X5660? it probably is but i want to make sure. Thanks for taking the time to do this thumb.gif.

SpacemanSpliff 01-26-2014 05:14 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingG14 View Post

Awesome thread! is the X5650 unlocked like the X5660? it probably is but i want to make sure. Thanks for taking the time to do this thumb.gif.

Yes, all of the Westmere X series Xeons are unlocked. The 5650 will just have a slower stock clock speed, I think 2.66 GHz compared to the X5660's 2.80 GHz stock, and the X5670's 2.93 GHz stock.

Kana-Maru 01-26-2014 10:39 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthMuse View Post

BF4 looks slightly better than BF3 however I like some things about BF3 better overall I think it was more polished and balanced and I liked sniping more on it, where as BF4 isn't as fun but is still good..

I personally liked sniping on Bad Company 2 better. Sniping on BF3 was easy as hell to me. I have yet to play BF4.


Yeah BF4 does look slightly better. Maybe I haven't followed the game close enough to noticed a ton of differences, but I don't see a lot of them. EA DICE probably should just named the engine Frostbite

Quote:
Originally Posted by kremtok View Post

That's quite insightful, thank you.

I've never benched before, but if the software is free I suppose that I can run a few passes for you to use in your comparisons. Memory is 1333MHz / 9-9-9-24.

Yeah man it's free. Just go to the web-sites and download them. You can get Cinebench R10 from guru3d. Just Google the others and you'll find the websites easily.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyanmcleod View Post

how can you find out if your board supports them x5660? trying to find some info on it but not much out there. i have the ASUS P6X58D-E LGA, shows support for the 990x so i would assume it could use this cpu? if so that is awesome for a cheap upgrade!

I'm not sure. Maybe with the latest BIOS upgrade you might. I haven't read anyone using the X5660 with your MB.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpacemanSpliff View Post

Well done man.. reading this makes me wish I would have held onto one or two of the handful of X5660s and X5670s I came across a few years ago and followed through with making a rig based around it. Unfortunately at the time I was going to build, I had gotten laid off from my job as the company downsized by a third. I managed to sell all 8 (4 each) of them on ebay in less about 4 hours for a very nice little chunk of change that got me through the 6 months before I got back to school though.

BOT, it's crazy to see how well 4 year old Xeons can still hang in there with the IB-E though.

Sorry to here about your job issues mans. I'm hoping everything is good now that you got back into school. The X58 is still a viable platform that can compete. I'm thinking about upgrading my RAM and GPUs to a Quad 7990 or something else. I don't see any bottlenecks with my current setup. I'm holding tight right now

SpacemanSpliff 01-26-2014 11:29 AM

That was 2 and a half years ago, lol. Everything's gravy these days, solid job, mid way through my junior year (pursuing a Hist./ Phil. double major for pre-law is proving to be a bit more of an undertaking than I'd imagined, lol) and upgrading soon from this Bulldozer build to a Haswell i5 build to tide me over until we find out more about Haswell-E. Although after reading this thread and seeing the still relevant level of performance and what the used/refurbished prices look like, I may try to track down an X55xx or X56xx for the guts of a folding and host server rig...

Rage19420 01-26-2014 11:46 AM

Awesome write up kana! Got me excited again with my older platform. Repped for sure!

Looks like I'm going to nab a sabertooth board off a chap on craigslist for a decent price. About $70 less then what they are going on eBay. Includes a i7-950 and ram, if I sell the chip my costs on the board would be about $100 thumb.gif

intelfan 01-26-2014 11:53 AM

Kana, can you do a GTA IV benchmark if you have it please? Thanks. Rep+ for your good work.

Kana-Maru 01-26-2014 01:36 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpacemanSpliff View Post

That was 2 and a half years ago, lol. Everything's gravy these days, solid job, mid way through my junior year (pursuing a Hist./ Phil. double major for pre-law is proving to be a bit more of an undertaking than I'd imagined, lol) and upgrading soon from this Bulldozer build to a Haswell i5 build to tide me over until we find out more about Haswell-E. Although after reading this thread and seeing the still relevant level of performance and what the used/refurbished prices look like, I may try to track down an X55xx or X56xx for the guts of a folding and host server rig...

That's good to hear man. Looks like everything in life has gotten much better. Well I can honestly say the X58 is still a pretty good platform. Even if you aren't looking to do heavy overclocks. You might get lucky and find a decently priced SR-2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rage19420 View Post

Awesome write up kana! Got me excited again with my older platform. Repped for sure!

Looks like I'm going to nab a sabertooth board off a chap on craigslist for a decent price. About $70 less then what they are going on eBay. Includes a i7-950 and ram, if I sell the chip my costs on the board would be about $100 thumb.gif

That's a great price. Make sure you run some burn in test on it to ensure it's not defective. Even if it is defective the 5 year warranty might be in effect with the Serial Number. Sounds good to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by intelfan View Post

Kana, can you do a GTA IV benchmark if you have it please? Thanks. Rep+ for your good work.

Thanks man. I'll get around to GTA IV when I finish a few more games. I'm sure you mean with mods right? I'm planning to max it out with mods. I'll be sure to post results as soon as I can.

Kana-Maru 01-26-2014 04:47 PM

I found something interesting while play BF3 @ stock clocks with DDR3-1333Mhz.

Operation Swordbreaker [Campaign] @ 2560 x 1600p
[Stock Clocks+ DDR3-1333Mhz]:


Frame rate:


Frame Time:


CPU: Max: 36C
Gameplay Duration: 22 minutes 57 secs
100,692 frames captured
FPS Avg: 73fps
FPS Max: 115fps
FPS Min: 42fps
Frame time Avg: 13.7ms

Running with stock CPU settings – 3.0Ghz [x23] - 3.2Ghz [x24] + DDR3-1333Mhz – there are minor differences when running my PC @4.6Ghz+1600Mhz. From my stock test it appears that most games won’t require the 3.8Ghz+ overclock in order to enjoy games in Ultra-high resolution modes [16:10 -2560x1600p]. I had no micro stutter or issues at all. 2560x1600p played like a champ @ 100% maxed out-Ultra Settings 1600p. The X5660 CPU continues to impress me. I only lost approximately 5fps from the 4.6Ghz-DDR3-1600Mhz overclock. The RAW numbers don’t lie. My frame time only increased 0.8ms which is no problem at all0. My CPU max was only 36C and the room ambient temp was 24c. This is very good to know and I will continue to test the stock clocks vs the overclock stocks during my real time gaming benchmarks. Not for every benchmark, but for high end games like Crysis 3 100% maxed @ 1080p. I have yet to play multilayer with stock settings. There isn't a huge difference in the Campaign thus far.

PontiacGTX 01-26-2014 05:10 PM

Could you make the comparison of 720/1080/1600p cpu usage(via task manager) with oc? Btw are you working with crysis 2?

cyanmcleod 01-26-2014 06:07 PM

can you try folding or cpu coin mining to get it up to 100% load and see how temps are after 30 minutes or so please. wanting to see if a 4.4 OC on 6 cores is really as stable as we think. if so i am so getting one of these.

Firehawk 01-26-2014 07:50 PM

I'm going to pick a few nits here....

Firstly, in your side to side X79-X58 comparison of features, X58 is listed as having SATA 3 and USB 3.0 support. These are not native to the chipset and are only available as add on features that the individual board manufacturers choose to put on via additional chips. The Marvell chips used for SATA 3 are horrendous performers, that you will never get full speeds out of, and a lot of people have issues with the USB chips that were used too. As a result, I don't think they should be included in the comparison.

Secondly, I think a clock for clock comparison would be more informative. Your x5660 is running at 4.8, the 4970X is running at 4.4 and the 3970X at 4.6. While its commendable that you're able to overclock as much as you did, and I like the fact that you show max OC performance, I'd like to see relative performance as well.

All that being said, I like the comparison thus far, and the effort is appreciated. It's good to see X58 isn't too far behind, but I don't think I'm going to spend anymore money on it at this point. I'll put that towards Haswell-E when it comes out. That $300 might buy me 8GB of DDR4. rolleyes.gif

Kana-Maru 01-26-2014 09:31 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyanmcleod View Post

can you try folding or cpu coin mining to get it up to 100% load and see how temps are after 30 minutes or so please. wanting to see if a 4.4 OC on 6 cores is really as stable as we think. if so i am so getting one of these.

I can do that. Just post some links for me so I can download the programs. I haven't jumped on Bitcoins just yet. I'm still learning about them. I've been so busy with other things in my life. Post some links for me to those downloads man. Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PontiacGTX View Post

Could you make the comparison of 720/1080/1600p cpu usage(via task manager) with oc? Btw are you working with crysis 2?

Yes sir. I can do that. I'll do them tomorrow after work I suppose. I've been pretty busy throughout the day. I'm still working with Crysis 2 Campaign and Multiplayer. I didn't have time to benchmark today. I'll also capture the CPU% for Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 as well. Analyzing all of the data takes a while when I'm working on several games. I'm also going to test my Total War II: Rome. It appears that game depends a lot on the CPU from what I've read. Civ V and GTA IV. I'm going to post them as fast as I can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firehawk View Post

I'm going to pick a few nits here....

Firstly, in your side to side X79-X58 comparison of features, X58 is listed as having SATA 3 and USB 3.0 support. These are not native to the chipset and are only available as add on features that the individual board manufacturers choose to put on via additional chips. The Marvell chips used for SATA 3 are horrendous performers, that you will never get full speeds out of, and a lot of people have issues with the USB chips that were used too. As a result, I don't think they should be included in the comparison.

Secondly, I think a clock for clock comparison would be more informative. Your x5660 is running at 4.8, the 4970X is running at 4.4 and the 3970X at 4.6. While its commendable that you're able to overclock as much as you did, and I like the fact that you show max OC performance, I'd like to see relative performance as well.

All that being said, I like the comparison thus far, and the effort is appreciated. It's good to see X58 isn't too far behind, but I don't think I'm going to spend anymore money on it at this point. I'll put that towards Haswell-E when it comes out. That $300 might buy me 8GB of DDR4. rolleyes.gif

I don't mind the nits. Everything is welcomed. Alright then, so it's safe to say that X79 doesn't have native PCI-E 3.0 support neither then right?. I never said that SATA 3 and USB 3.0 were native. I included them since most enthusiast finish their research before buying a board that doesn't support features they plan to use. I know some motherboards have the add in SATA 6 chipsets. Users who use the Marvell 9182 will find much better performance than those using the 9128 chipsets from what I've read. However, the 9128 chipsets can't be that bad since some users are posting SSD numbers towards 500 MB/s with the latest Marvell drivers. Then again I've never personally tested my SATA III performance on my board with Intel RST since SATA II+RST has been great for my programs so far. Maybe I'll get another SSD and test it out someday. As for the USB chips, I haven't ran into any issues using my USB 3.0. I read more about the SATA III more than the USB 3.0 as far as issues go.

Well it's hard finding a fair comparison since I'm only running 1600Mhz. Everyone else is running ridiculous amounts of RAM speeds to get those higher numbers. I'm one man so I try to pull scores from reputable review sites. Also I will take your advice and compare my [email protected] to a [email protected] that is ranked on HWBOT for a fair comparison.

Cinebench R11.5

[email protected]4.8Ghz /w DDR3-2134Mhz = 13.82 [+11.6%]
X5660 @4.8Ghz /w DDR3-1600Mhz = 12.38 [0.0%]

Now as you can see the i7-3960X is only 11.6% faster than my X5660 with the same CPU speed. I would love to test them clock for clock with the same RAM speed. That's just not going to happen. With faster RAM I could tighten that number. Everyone knows Cinebench loves faster RAM with tighter timings. I try to find more comparisons for you and add it to my review. Clock for Clock for those who would like to see those results.

Thanks for the complement and thanks for reading man. Haswell-E is right around the corner and I'm sure many will jump on it. I think I'll hold on to my X58 a bit longer and wait for prices to drop and revisions. I'm hoping heat isn't a issue like it was for Ivy and Haswell. Also what $300? X5660 are low as $150.00 now. Well that is if everyone doesn't buy them so fast.

rezax58 01-26-2014 09:41 PM

Just saw your two threads on anandtech....all i can is wow...logged off for good and will never post there again.

Firehawk 01-26-2014 09:47 PM

Well I checked Ebay, and didn't see any that cheap. Maybe I missed them.

As for RAM speeds, that's one problem with X58 that's hard to get around. I have seen some people running Samsung LP RAM around 2200 on the X58, but that's with loose timings like CL 13 or so. You have to play with the multipliers and bclock to get it up there. For most applications 1600 is plenty. Its just the benchmarks where you see it.

Kana-Maru 01-26-2014 09:54 PM

Yeah it's pretty much the benchmarks that require the fastest memory. 1600Mhz is fine for everyday use and gaming. It does look like the $125 and $150 X5660 have sold out man. Sorry. The only X5660 I see now are engineer samples for $150. There is a X5660 for $100, but you have to bid on it.

Vlasov_581 01-26-2014 09:59 PM

http://www.ebay.com/itm/AT80614004320AD-INTEL-XEON-X5650-6-CORE-2-66GHz-12MB-6-40GT-s-95W-PROC-/131092988378?pt=US_Server_CPUs_Processors&hash=item1e85c041da

Rage19420 01-27-2014 04:58 AM

I might pull the plug on one of the engineering samples on eBay. Or maybe make an offer on an x5670 for maybe around $200-$225 and see if anyone bites.

rezax58 01-27-2014 08:01 AM

Just ordered an x5650. The ad said it's a slbv3 so I'm hoping that it's true and that I won't get a spicy one. Anyone know how to confirm once I receive it?

Now, what do I do with my I7 930? It's one of the best 930 chips out there....hmmm

Kana-Maru 01-27-2014 04:28 PM

Good luck on the bidding Rage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezax58 View Post

Just saw your two threads on anandtech....all i can is wow...logged off for good and will never post there again.

Sorry I missed your post. I've been hearing that a lot about anandtech. It just seems like a hostile environment, not to mention it was my first created thread. I'm going to be adding my clock for clock - 4960X and 3960X 4.8Ghz.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezax58 View Post

Just ordered an x5650. The ad said it's a slbv3 so I'm hoping that it's true and that I won't get a spicy one. Anyone know how to confirm once I receive it?

Now, what do I do with my I7 930? It's one of the best 930 chips out there....hmmm

Either sell the 930 or keep it for a backup just in case. Also to answer your question about the "slbv3". Once you revieve the X5650, check the stepping in CPU-Z and report back here. The stepping will be the tell tales.

Rage19420 01-27-2014 04:59 PM

I thought I read somewhere that to update nobo bios you will need to update with a native i7 9xx processor. In my case I will still hold onto my i7 920 for that purpose.

rezax58 01-27-2014 05:18 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kana-Maru View Post

Good luck on the bidding Rage.
Sorry I missed your post. I've been hearing that a lot about anandtech. It just seems like a hostile environment, not to mention it was my first created thread. I'm going to be adding my clock for clock - 4960X and 3960X 4.8Ghz.
Either sell the 930 or keep it for a backup just in case. Also to answer your question about the "slbv3". Once you revieve the X5650, check the stepping in CPU-Z and report back here. The stepping will be the tell tales.

Good news, i checked a website and the slbv3 were retail chips with B1 stepping. So I should be ok aslong as the seller used the correct info. I'm thinking about keeping my 930 and finding another ud5, or ud7 to complement it. It does 4.4ghz on air at 1.42 vcore and 4.1ghz at 1.26v!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rage19420 View Post

I thought I read somewhere that to update nobo bios you will need to update with a native i7 9xx processor. In my case I will still hold onto my i7 920 for that purpose.

Good to know. I know for a fact my Ud7 is compatible after a little bit of research. The last release bios from 2010 unlcocked all these feature including 21x multiplier (or was it x20) so I should be good.

Kana-Maru 01-27-2014 06:01 PM

That's good to here man. I've taken the suggestion from Firehawk and posted the relative performance for all CPUs @ 4.8Ghz [except the i7-920]

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. If I ever upgrade my RAM I will upgrade the benchmarks. It took a while 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%]

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.


I'll get around to gaming benchmarks eventually. I had a long day at work today.

ruggercb 01-28-2014 11:17 AM

I first ordered an L5639 from ebay but the seller took his sweet time about shipping, so I've cancelled the transaction, and am now awaiting an X5650. Hoping it works well. The 5650 is "New Bulk" with a 90 day warranty, so that also makes me feel a little better about it.

rezax58 01-29-2014 05:18 PM

Received my X5650 today and just finished installing it now. Bios settings are on Auto except for Ram. Already notice a difference. Everything seems to be snappier. There is some noise coming from around the CPU though. It sounds like one of those power saving features intel includes on their chip like on my laptop.








EDIT: 4.2ghz OC

x5650reza42.png

Kana-Maru 01-29-2014 06:30 PM

Looks good man thumb.gif! Run some benchmarks. Also it's a Xeon - it's using the C-states as well and does great with power.saving. Even if I overclock my CPU to 4.8Ghz it will still down clocks to around 2Ghz. At stock clocks it down clocks to 1.6Ghz. How long do you think I will be before you start overclocking it?

rezax58 01-29-2014 06:41 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kana-Maru View Post

Looks good man thumb.gif! Run some benchmarks. Also it's a Xeon - it's using the C-states as well and does great with power.saving. Even if I overclock my CPU to 4.8Ghz it will still down clocks to around 2Ghz. At stock clocks it down clocks to 1.6Ghz. How long do you think I will be before you start overclocking it?

Hey man if you go back to my post I edited with a picture of 4.2ghz. I can safely say that this chip is not power hungry at all. Very similar to my 930!

The cpu coil/static noise is kind of annoying though, I may disable c3/6/9 or whatever it is in bios and see if that stops it.

OH and hope you don't mind me posting these in your thread. I totally understand if you would like me to take it down!

Kana-Maru 01-29-2014 07:18 PM

Nah man I don't mind you posting at all. It's 100% no issue with me. Glad to see you running 4.2Ghz. That's pretty much all you'll need for gaming. Even if you run a Quad setup, 4.2Ghz should be perfectly fine. Also run Prime95 and Memtest to make sure everything is working properly. IntelBurnTest is great as well. I'm pretty sure you'll be able to hit 4.6Ghz with safe vCore. At least I'm hoping you can. You don't have to take down the pictures man.

I've never heard CPU coil\noise come from my CPU or any that I've ever owned. I hope you can fix that issue.

Kana-Maru 01-29-2014 08:26 PM



The Cousins Bellic + It's Your Call Missions @2560x1600p:

Stock GTX 670 2GB 2-Way SLI @ 915Mhz
X5660 @ 3.2Ghz
RAM: DDR3-1333Mhz

Gameplay Duration: 27 minutes 4 secs
Captured 78,263 frames
FPS Avg: 48fps
FPS Max: 72fps
FPS Min: 30fps
Frame time Avg: 20.8ms

Using the latest high-end mods makes GTA IV looks fantastic. I’m running the game maxed out + mods. I’m also running all of the unrestricted command lines. The Frame rate is decent and the frame time was great. The game was a little choppy at first, but got better as I continued to play. The game was very playable. It all depends on the area. Some areas will be a bit choppy along with input delay. Other areas are perfectly fine.The fps were as steady as I would like personally, but that isn’t a bad thing. I did not use the V-sync option, but I’m sure it would help. The CPU Usage Average was 30%. However, this all changed when I overclocked my CPU [read below].


Three's a Crowd + First Date Missions @ 2560x1600p:

Stock GTX 670 2GB 2-Way SLI @ 915Mhz
[email protected]
RAM: DDR3-1600Mhz

Gameplay Duration: 23 minutes 4 secs
Captured 76,908 frames
FPS Avg: 55fps
FPS Max: 94fps
FPS Min: 25fps
Frame time Avg: 18.6ms

After running my overclock settings while increasing my RAM from 1333Mhz to 1600Mhz, GTA IV with mods is much more playable. Not only did I gain 7 frames per second and lowering my frame time average to 18.6ms, the game was very playable. The frame rate was steady. I never benchmark with V-sync for obvious reasons, but with my overclocked X5660 I didn’t need to use V-sync to keep the frames steady. If I were to overclock my GPU to 1241Mhz I’m sure I could get well over 60fps. I’m just running stock clocks to keep the heat low and to give everyone an example of stock speeds. There was no input lag and no latency issues. I believe a minor overclock to 3.8Ghz-4.2Ghz would be fine. The CPU Usage Average was on 15% while playing.

PontiacGTX 01-30-2014 09:13 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by rezax58 View Post

Received my X5650 today and just finished installing it now. Bios settings are on Auto except for Ram. Already notice a difference. Everything seems to be snappier. There is some noise coming from around the CPU though. It sounds like one of those power saving features intel includes on their chip like on my laptop.








EDIT: 4.2ghz OC

x5650reza42.png
what`s better oc you can reach?

Asus11 01-31-2014 03:58 PM

this thread makes me want to go back to 1366

biggrin.gif

Vlasov_581 01-31-2014 07:15 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asus11 View Post

this thread makes me want to go back to 1366 biggrin.gif

After playing with some many different chipsets, 1366 was the one that stuck with me redface.gif

Kana-Maru 02-02-2014 10:51 AM

I'm planning on holding on to my LGA1366-X58 for a long time. My upgrade itch is eased. I'm still excited for the octo cores, but I hope the prices aren't outrageous. Knowing Intel I'm sure they will be pretty high and you'll have to get the K-version to overclock.

Bonn93 02-02-2014 03:00 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kana-Maru View Post

I'm planning on holding on to my LGA1366-X58 for a long time. My upgrade itch is eased. I'm still excited for the octo cores, but I hope the prices aren't outrageous. Knowing Intel I'm sure they will be pretty high and you'll have to get the K-version to overclock.

Hell yeah! I'm in the same boat. I'll be going to an Intel 8 core, probably Xeon next. New fileserver with my current rig I think! who's got an overclocked fileserver!?

Bonn93 02-02-2014 04:13 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kana-Maru View Post

Thanks to the widespread news of the hex cores, USED Asus Sabertooth X58’s have increased in price. It’s going to be hard to find a cheap one now. Anywhere from $230-$300+ is what I’ve been seeing since late last year. Sabertooth X58 were as low as $110-150, but not anymore.
Thank man! X58 users should unite. We are still using an extremely viable platform that can still run any graphic card released today. I’m sure the platform does surprise everyone, which is probably why the X58 boards have been skyrocketing over the past year or so. I saw a Sabertooth X58 for $800 brand new on Amazon. Funny thing is someone actually purchased it. Now there’s only 1 for $229.99. I’m going to posting my gaming benchmarks soon.

A lot of the 6-cores have been selling out all across Ebay. Good luck man. I hope you find a nice chip one that's good and not defective.

Man did I just hit the jackpot!

We have a bunch of Dell 710s with dual X5660/ X5650 Hex cores being decommissioned mid this year! May have to pay the company a little bit, but I'll get a bargain.

Kana-Maru 02-03-2014 01:07 PM

Yeah I've worked quit a few Dell Power Edges over the years for my job. That's pretty good to hear man. I'm sure you'll get one hell of a deal.

I've been playing Total War: Rome II and man it definitely CPU\GPU dependent. I'll definitely have to do some comparisons. The game 100% maxed out @ 1080p is making my 2GB reference 670 @ stock + CPU @ stock struggle a bit. Playable, but the frame rate isn't all that great. It's very playable though. I'm gonna have to overclock them back to 1241Mhz in order to get better fps and run my CPU @ 4.6Ghz. I can run benchmarks and post my results if anyone cares.

Edit: I cleaned up the very first post. The review should be much easier to navigate through now. Let me know if it's better.

ruggercb 02-03-2014 09:06 PM

Got my 5650 today. Benchmarks look promising. It runs almost as well stock as my i7 920 does at 3.8 but I can't get the system to reboot now. It sits there and periodically blinks the power button and cycles the fans. None of the mobo lights come on. It will only go to BIOS if I pull the power cord then plug it back in. After that it boots fine. Would this have to do with the C states? I have everything set to enabled.

I've messed with all the boot orders and AHCI stuff and it hasn't made a difference.

Bonn93 02-03-2014 09:22 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruggercb View Post

Got my 5650 today. Benchmarks look promising. It runs almost as well stock as my i7 920 does at 3.8 but I can't get the system to reboot now. It sits there and periodically blinks the power button and cycles the fans. None of the mobo lights come on. It will only go to BIOS if I pull the power cord then plug it back in. After that it boots fine. Would this have to do with the C states? I have everything set to enabled.

I've messed with all the boot orders and AHCI stuff and it hasn't made a difference.

New CPU, I would restore your BIOS to defaults and get it booting first. Then start your tweaks prior to OC settings.

Rage19420 02-03-2014 09:28 PM

You updated to the latest bios rev?

ruggercb 02-03-2014 09:33 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rage19420 View Post

You updated to the latest bios rev?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonn93 View Post

New CPU, I would restore your BIOS to defaults and get it booting first. Then start your tweaks prior to OC settings.

Everything is set to default, and I've cleared the CMOS and reinstalled the latest bios. Still only boots after I pull the power cord, then it's fine.

Kana-Maru 02-04-2014 04:21 PM

That's weird. I really don't know what to suggest. It should run at stock all day. If it's still not working you might want to return it.

rezax58 02-04-2014 04:59 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruggercb View Post


Everything is set to default, and I've cleared the CMOS and reinstalled the latest bios. Still only boots after I pull the power cord, then it's fine.

Try unplugging all case wires from your motherboard and then turn on the pc by using a flat head screwdriver on the jumper. See if that works

ruggercb 02-04-2014 07:34 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by rezax58 View Post

Try unplugging all case wires from your motherboard and then turn on the pc by using a flat head screwdriver on the jumper. See if that works

It acts just the same. It goes into the loop until I turn off/unplug the PSU, then it boots with the screwdriver. I didn't unplug the reset switch or the HD LED wire. Does that matter? In addition to that, I reseated the CPU and applied the "less is more" method of thermal paste. I also reseated my PCI cards, all the RAM, unplugged the CPU power and MOBO power, reset the bios, cleared the DMI pool and reflashed to the latest revision.

Once I have this thing in Windows, this chip is great! At stock it's running very near ambient temps. I played BF4 last night for almost an hour with it overclocked at 3.8 GHz too and voltages on "auto". No problems. What gives with this boot BS?!?

Thanks everyone for the advice so far.

EDIT I removed all the case wires and that didn't change anything. Also, I set it to sleep from windows and it woke up fine from that. I also ran my hibernate task from task scheduler and it woke fine from that as well.

EDIT 2 After putting the PC to both sleep and hibernate, it restarts and powers off and on normally. I kept thinking it had something to do with the sleep states and whatnot, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about that. I've restarted and powered down multiple times and it's working fine. Crazy! I think I'll leave the BIOS at stock for a while...don't want to tempt fate. smile.gif

EDIT 3 Well, it was an unfortunate coincidence that made me think it was sleep states. As it turns out, the latest revision of the mobo's bios is what won't let it boot properly. I reverted to what the mobo shipped with and it boots fine. Only problem now is it won't post when I try to OC the X5650. All I've done is leave everything at auto and change the BCLK to 200 and let the ram run @1600, it's rated speed. Gotta reset the CMOS to get back to the bios.

Oh well. At stock it is still some faster than my i7 920 @ 3.8.

Asus11 02-05-2014 09:02 AM

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

biggrin.gif

hmm time to have some fun

anubis1127 02-05-2014 09:12 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asus11 View Post

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

biggrin.gif

hmm time to have some fun

:drool:  Nice board.


DarthMuse 02-07-2014 04:06 PM

I came from one of the earlier dual cores to x79 3960x 2 years ago it was massive upgrade but 1366 is still modern tech if I had it id stay on it too, even when Haswell-E comes out it won't be much of a upgrade to x79 it will have 2 extra cores which will be good but won't effect real world performance much other than video editing, gaming still isn't maxing out older 6 core models.

ruggercb 02-07-2014 04:48 PM

My 5650 is working pretty well now. I have it clocked at 3.5 GHz, idles at 28 C, full load runs at 50 C. For whatever reason, the whole system is a lot cooler, including the video cards. At 3.5 it does a full Blu Ray rip in Handbrake approx 50% faster than my i7 920 @3.8 did. It took a little work, but it was worth it for the results.

PontiacGTX 02-07-2014 05:13 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruggercb View Post

My 5650 is working pretty well now. I have it clocked at 3.5 GHz, idles at 28 C, full load runs at 50 C. For whatever reason, the whole system is a lot cooler, including the video cards. At 3.5 it does a full Blu Ray rip in Handbrake approx 50% faster than my i7 920 @3.8 did. It took a little work, but it was worth it for the results.
your i7 920 was a 45nm chip,these x5650 are 32nm

Kana-Maru 02-07-2014 11:28 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthMuse View Post

I came from one of the earlier dual cores to x79 3960x 2 years ago it was massive upgrade but 1366 is still modern tech if I had it id stay on it too, even when Haswell-E comes out it won't be much of a upgrade to x79 it will have 2 extra cores which will be good but won't effect real world performance much other than video editing, gaming still isn't maxing out older 6 core models.

You are probably right. I believe people stopped believing in true Intel upgrades a few years ago. Not much has changed after 1366 as far as benchmarks, gaming and everyday use goes. Some people still try to bash the X58 platform from time to time, but it's still a contender. You also forget to mention "benchmarks". I really hope people don't spend a ton of money on DDR4 and\or Haswell-E just to get high benchmark scores. Everyday task rarely makes a difference with the right setup after it's all said and done. Hell added a SSD will make the PC speedier than ever. I'm thinking of setting up RAID soon [with HDDs]. More cores will net better scores, but I wonder if it will be able to hit 5.2-5.4Ghz with safe voltage. More than likely not. I'm getting tired of the 4.6Ghz-4.8Ghz limitations. Of course people can go higher, but you won't be able to run CPUs for that long with high voltages. Games haven't even maxed Hex Cores clocked at 3.6Ghz-3.8Ghz just yet. At least not the high-end games. Maybe the next gen consoles will change that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruggercb View Post

My 5650 is working pretty well now. I have it clocked at 3.5 GHz, idles at 28 C, full load runs at 50 C. For whatever reason, the whole system is a lot cooler, including the video cards. At 3.5 it does a full Blu Ray rip in Handbrake approx 50% faster than my i7 920 @3.8 did. It took a little work, but it was worth it for the results.

Congrats and as PontiacGTX said the 32nm makes a big difference. X5650 generate less heat and utilize the C-states, which leads to low voltage and power usage. I run my X5660 @ stock for now and have no issues with everyday task [never goes above 35C at 100% Usage ]. I'm running stock for the low power wattage benefits. I overclock whenever I need to. Lately I've been overclocking for benchmarks.
----

I've been running a lot of benchmarks while playing Total War: Rome II. I've been comparing the CPU speeds-stock vs OC'd @ 1080p 100% maxed. I'll post the results when I get everything typed up. I've already analyzed all of my data.

Kana-Maru 02-08-2014 03:07 PM

Total War: Rome II



Prologue - The Siege of Capua @1920 x 1080:

Stock GTX 670 2GB 2-Way SLI @ 915Mhz
X5660 @ 3.2Ghz
RAM: DDR3-1333Mhz

CPU Avg: 28%
CPU Max: 54%
Gameplay Duration: 19 minutes 46secs
23,885 Frames Captured
FPS Avg: 20fps
FPS Max: 55fps
FPS Min: 10fps
Frame time Avg: 49.6ms

I added the CPU Usage info for anyone who wanted to know the difference between stock vs overclock usage. It was pretty late when I performed this benchmark so I forget to log the CPU temperatures.

In the past I found that most games don’t rely on the CPU heavily. Most recently High-end games like BF3 for example can run fine without massive CPU overclocks as I’ve posted. Sometimes the gains aren’t worth the power and CPU voltage. Well that isn’t the case with Total War: Rome II. This game depends on the CPU a lot. A decently clocked CPU can make your experience pleasant. If your CPU is slow then obviously things won’t go over so smoothly with your eyes and key input. As you can see from my benchmark above, I didn’t have the best experience.

My Xeon is clocked @ 3.2Ghz, which then down clocks to 3.0Ghz after two cores are being used. Although I played through the Prologue with minor issues for my taste [or just hype for the game], some things can’t be ignored. Random stutter, random input lag and low FPS. Input delay and difficulties with the controls due to micro “like” stuttering. Now what makes the “Prologue” different than the “Campaign” is that there is no overworld menu. The game places you directly in a huge battle with hundreds, if not thousands of soldiers on the screen at any given time. The level is pretty large as well. Not to forget to mention that I’m playing the game 100% MAXED as I showed in the picture above. The game is gorgeous, but the gameplay wasn’t the best. 20 fps isn’t that bad when everything is moving at a steady motion. However, once there’s a lot of things happening on screen you can expect anywhere from 17-27 fps. The frame time was all over the place and was literally Spiking rapidly during my benchmark test. Two of my highest spikes were 88.8ms and 104ms! That is very unacceptable; however, it only happened twice respectfully. The experience was passable, but far from decent. Also remember than I’m running the 2GB reference GTX 670 for testing to give a fair CPU comparison. Read below for my overclocked settings.



Prologue - The Siege of Capua @1920 x 1080: Overclock 4.6Ghz+1600Mhz RAM

Stock GTX 670 2GB 2-Way SLI @ 915Mhz
X5660 @ 4.6Ghz
RAM: DDR3-1600Mhz

CPU Usage Avg: 27%
CPU Usage Avg: 38%
CPU Temp: Avg: 49C
CPU Max: 54C
Room Ambient: Approx: 22C
Gameplay Duration: 17 minutes 29secs
35,112 Frames Captured
FPS Avg: 33fps
FPS Max: 77fps
FPS Min: 18fps
Frame time Avg: 29.9ms

Now that I’ve overclocked my CPU to 4.6Ghz and increased my DRAM to 1600Mhz everything is much better now. I gained 13 much needed frames per second. To make things even better, the frame rate dropped 19.7ms from 49.6ms which puts me at 29.9ms; which is very good. The experience was much better. I instantly noticed the increase in fps and smoother gameplay. There was also no input delay. Everything was smooth and the 33fps appears to be constant. The frame per second usually stayed above 40 throughout the benchmark test.

There was no rapid spiking in the frame rates and frame time during the benchmark. In the last test my frame time spiked to ridiculous number, over 100ms. Although it only happened one my overclocked settings were obviously much better. My highest frame time was 55.8ms and 74.7ms. What matters most is the average fps and frame time overall. The Prologue was very enjoyable. I had no slowdowns to steady frame times and frame rates. I’m going to use my 4.2Ghz OC settings instead of 4.6Ghz in my next test to see if there’s a big difference between 4.6Ghz and 4.2Ghz. 4.2Ghz will be easy for most overclockers to hit. 100% MAXED in a massive game like this is fine with me. I could always downgrade the graphic to Ultra instead of Extreme. However, I’m sticking with the Extreme + 100% max settings.


Campaign Mode @1920 x 1080:


Campaign – First 2 hours @1920 x 1080:
Stock GTX 670 2GB 2-Way SLI @ 915Mhz
X5660 @ 3.2Ghz
RAM: DDR3-1333Mhz

CPU Avg: 24%
CPU Max: 100%
CPU Temp Avg: 30c
CPU Temp Max: 37c
Ambient Temp: 19C
Gameplay Duration: 1 hour 57 secs
136,535 Frames Captured
FPS Avg: 37fps
FPS Max: 80fps
FPS Min: 13fps
Frame time Avg: 26.8ms

I figured that I’d benchmark this game as I played it. I really like this game. It’s pretty deep like other RTS games. Despite all of the fun I had playing the game, there were some major issues. Before I jump right into the issues I need to distinguish the Prologue from the Campaign. The Campaign is the “story”. The prologue obviously is what leads to the Campaign\story, but what makes it different is that the Prologue has no overworld map. The Prologue places you directly in battle and the Campaign allows you to control everything with different menus. The reason I’m explaining this is because you can see that the frames per second is up 17fps in the Campaign [37fps] instead of 20fps in the Prologue. The Campaign doesn't focus solely on decisive battles. However, the overworld view is pretty demanding. Scrolling fast across the map caused my frame rate to drop extremely low [13 - 19fps]. The drop was sharp and unexpected as well. There was a bit of stutter while playing which ultimately leads to input delay.

Overall the game played much better. This was due to the areas being much smaller than the Prologue and having fewer enemies on screen. So battles were a lot better than the Prologue. The average frame times were a lot better, but could not prevent the micro stutter issues on the overworld map. The CPU average was low, but the CPU obviously wasn’t moving data quick enough. The CPU actually hit 100% during my play through. This could be a error or it could have happened while the overworld map was stuttering. That’s definitely not good, but overall the game was decent and very playable. There were some stutter issues that I could not ignore on the overworld map.

Campaign – 1 hour 41 minutes @1920 x 1080: Overclock 4.6Ghz+1600Mhz RAM

Stock GTX 670 2GB 2-Way SLI @ 915Mhz
X5660 @ 4.6Ghz
RAM: DDR3-1600Mhz

CPU Usage Avg: 22%
CPU Usage Max: 37%
CPU Temp Avg: 45c
CPU Temp Max: 60c
Ambient Temp: 22c
Gameplay Duration: 1 hour 10 mins
189,477 Frames Captured
FPS Avg: 47fps
FPS Max: 89fps
FPS Min: 19fps
Frame time Avg: 21.4ms

I gained 10fps after overclocking the CPU and RAM. The frame time was much better as well. Overall the gameplay was much better. 4.2Ghz will get you 42fps. 4.6Ghz does make a difference, but 4Ghz-4.2Ghz will be fine for playing this game if you have a GTX 670 or anything near the 2GB reference specs.

Hopefully this helps those X58 users who are still wondering if the X5660 or L5639 will be worth it for gaming. Well the answer is yes it will be.

Artikbot 02-08-2014 03:40 PM

This post does nothing but further set the grounds for this idea that's been cooking in my head for the past couple of months. Sell the Phenom, the motherboard, and the memory and purchase a Xeon hexa with an X58 motherboard. The rest of my machine is plenty capable of taking it.

Very nice post OP smile.gif

Whisky2 02-09-2014 01:40 AM

Kana-Maru because of you I exchange my old i7 [email protected] to Xeon E5645.

1,3V 19*211 + Turbo


anubis1127 02-09-2014 06:35 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whisky2 View Post

Kana-Maru because of you I exchange my old i7 [email protected] to Xeon E5645.

1,3V 19*211 + Turbo

Nice OC.

 

This thread makes me want to pick up a x58 board for my E5630 I have sitting around. 


Rage19420 02-09-2014 10:33 AM

Ive been doing some CPU mining on MAX and using 8 of 12 cores.






Should i be worried?

Kana-Maru 02-09-2014 11:01 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artikbot View Post

This post does nothing but further set the grounds for this idea that's been cooking in my head for the past couple of months. Sell the Phenom, the motherboard, and the memory and purchase a Xeon hexa with an X58 motherboard. The rest of my machine is plenty capable of taking it.

Very nice post OP smile.gif

Thanks man. I'm going to continue to add more data+benchmarks as I complete them. If you can find the CPU+MB at a good price then go for it. As far as gaming and and video compression\rendering. Faster RAM makes things even better. I love AMD, but Intel has a choke hold on the market. I wish we had more options than Intel, but these Hex cores are great.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anubis1127 View Post

Nice OC.

This thread makes me want to pick up a x58 board for my E5630 I have sitting around.

Do it if you can find a good motherboard for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whisky2 View Post

Kana-Maru because of you I exchange my old i7 [email protected] to Xeon E5645.

1,3V 19*211 + Turbo


That's good to hear man. That's pretty good OC as well..How is it so far? I'm sure the benchmarks are looking much better. How is everyday programs running?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rage19420 View Post

Ive been doing some CPU mining on MAX and using 8 of 12 cores.




Should i be worried?

I wouldn't be that worried at those temps, but I would be worried if you continue to run the Westmere at those temps for a very long time when it comes to testing, folding or mining. I never really mine for bitcoins that much with the CPU anyways. My personal Load temps must be under 70c [64c-70c] for me to run them for a long time. Anything over 72c can be harmful over time. So yeah I would be a little worried and focus on dropping the temps by adjusting some settings or lowering your ambient temp.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.