Jump to content

The 8 core showdown and analysis thread.

ALXAndy
mainlogo400.jpg

 

OK so I have been smashing the data. This thread can serve multiple purposes really.

 

* To see if an 8 core CPU is a viable proposition to a gaming PC.

 

* To see core use in games over the past year, to see if things have changed.

 

* To give a purpose to the forthcoming 8 core Haswell E CPU in a desktop machine.

 

* To see if the rumours that Xeons are crap for a gaming rig are true.

 

I'm going to compare an 8 core* AMD FX 8320 CPU clocked to 4.2ghz (that cost £110) with an Intel Xeon 8 core 16 thread CPU (socket 2011) that I also paid £110 for. Then I am going to analyse which games actually make use of all of those threads and how well they load up the CPU.

 

NOTES.

 

First up I'm fully aware the Xeon only boosts to 2ghz under load. I can not overclock it, not even in tiny increments via the FSB because even 101mhz makes the PC stick in a boot loop. So before the Intel boys dive in with accusations of comparing totally different clock speeds; there's nothing I can do about it. It's not my fault Intel decide to lock their CPUs at given speeds and then set a price structure for speed.

 

It's not always about speed and figures. At the end of the day a CPU can be perfectly suitable for a task, even if it does not appear as good as another one. You'd actually be amazed just how little CPU power you need for most of the time.

 

Heat and power are not a part of this analysis. Simply because I don't care, nor do I want to become embroiled in a stupid argument. This thread is strictly 8 cores only. I don't care about, nor want to know your results with your overclocked 4770k. Remember - 8 cores. I no longer care about clock speeds and IPC. I want to see more cores, being used, at lower prices. What I'd ideally like to see is a 6/8 core CPU by Intel that simply drops into a socket 1150 without the need to buy ridiculous motherboards or ram.

 

Hey, a guy can dream, right?

 

OK. So let's get it on then...

 

Here are the specs to concentrate on. The AMD rig is as follows.

 

AMD FX 8320 @ 4.9ghz

Asus Crosshair V Formula Z

8GB Mushkin Blackline running at 1533mhz (offsets with the FSB)

Corsair RM 750 PSU

Corsair H100

AMD Radeon 7990 ghz

OCZ Revodrive 120gb running RAID 0

Windows 8 Professional X64 (note, not 8.1 !)

 

Then onto the Intel rig. Note, this was a rebuild, so components stayed identical barring the board and CPU.

 

Intel Xeon V2 Ivybridge. 8 core, 16 thread, 2ghz

Gigabyte X79-UD3 motherboard.

8GB Mushkin Blackline running at 1600mhz XMP

Corsair RM 750 PSU

Corsair H100

AMD Radeon 7990 ghz

OCZ Revodrive 120gb running RAID 0

Windows 8 Professional X64 (note, not 8.1 !)

 

CPU validations.

 

AMD

 

CPUZAMD49.jpg

 

Intel

 

cpuidXeon.jpg

 

I start with some benchmarks. First up was 3Dmark 11

 

AMD result

 

AMD3dmark1149.jpg

 

And the Intel

 

3dmark11Xeon.jpg

 

And already strange things happen. The Intel scored a higher physics score (which pertains to the CPU) yet even though the Intel also runs PCIE 3.0 (IB) it loses out overall. Very, very strange.

 

Then it was on to 3dmark (13) AMD up.

 

AMD3dmark1349.jpg

 

And then it was the Intel's turn.

 

3dmarkFirestrikeXeon.jpg

 

TBH that's bloody, awfully close. It's actually within the margin of error but I promised myself before I began that I would not obsess over one benchmark and become sidetracked running it over and over again.

 

OK, so round three, Asus Realbench 2.0.

 

Interlude.

 

Asus Realbench is *the* most accurate benchmark I have ever ran in my entire life. Instead of making their own synthetic, unrealistic benchmark they simply took a bunch of programs and then mashed them together. This way the results are actual real world results. As an example, test one is GIMP image editing. Then it uses Handbrake and other benchmarks to actually gain a good idea of what a system is capable of.

 

This is also the toughest benchmark I have ever ran. I can run Firestrike all day long, but Realbench absolutely tortures a rig to the breaking point.

 

I ended up having to remove the side of the AMD rig and aim a floor standing fan at it to get it through.

 

So here is the AMD result.

 

ASUSBENCHAMD49.jpg

 

And the Intel result.

 

AsusRealbenchXeon.jpg

 

Wow. Now this one truly knocked me sideways. I never expected the AMD rig to win on IPC alone (GIMP). Even an I7 920 runs the AMD close in GIMP, but the AMD absolutely trumped the Intel all the way through.

 

And this, lads and ladies, is why Asus make very high end boards for these chips. Simply as Bindi (an employee of Asus) points out, the AMDs are actually very good CPUs.

 

Then it was on to Cinebench, and another surprise..

 

AMD

 

CinebenchAMD49.jpg

 

And then Intel.

 

CinebenchXeonandcoreuse.jpg

 

The surprise? not that AMD won. I was actually very impressed with the Intel's performance, given it is clearly running at less than half of the speed it's actually capable of. I hazard a guess that this CPU could actually double that speed if unlocked and overclocked, which does make me a teeny bit excited about Haswell E.

 

OK so no set of benchmarks would be complete without at least one game. I decided to choose Metro : Last Light. You'll see why later when I get onto the part about core use, but here is the AMD's result.

 

METROLLAMD49.jpg

 

And the Intel.

 

MetroLLXeon.jpg

 

And it was finally victory to the Intel. Not by much, but Metro clearly absolutely loves the cores and wants as many as you can throw at it.

 

Due to this result I decided to keep the Intel. There are other reasons of course, this played a part.

 

CORETEMPS.jpg

 

Less than 14 watts idle, and I had real trouble making it use more than 90w under load. Temps are always under 40c no matter what which means the rig is now very quiet.

 

Area 51 2014. Intel 5820k@ 4.4ghz. MSI X99.16gb Quad channel ram. AMD Fury X.Asus RAIDR.OCZ ARC 480gb SSD. Velociraptor 600gb. 2tb WD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK so it's time for part two. The comparisons are now over, now it's time to crack on and see what those cores offer us in gaming.

 

With this part of the analysis I aim to debunk the myths. So, right now I am a mythbuster. Those myths include, but are not limited to -

 

"Pah. You don't need any more than four cores for gaming. Only a tiny handful of games use that many"

 

"No games support 8 cores, let alone more"

 

"Xeons are crap for gaming because they're somehow different inside"

 

OK, so those are the usual off the cuff comments doing the rounds. Here's my take. Basically I would take a CPU that's clocked to 2ghz with 8 cores and 16 threads over a quad core CPU clocked to within an inch of its life. Games and applications that use the cores tend to spread it around, meaning you get the same sort of performance without using masses of power or generating tons of heat. This is exactly why I decided to put a Westmere hex into my 670 SLI rig. Simply because in all of the latest games (and I mean all of them ) core count produced very similar, or better, results than running a CPU to within an inch of its life, thermal limits and voltage tolerance.

 

This is also why I chose to keep the 8/16 Intel in the rig, rather than putting back the more brutal AMD. I don't usually care about power use tbh. My bills are more than affordable, even with the stuff I have. However, noise is always a bonus if you can eradicate as much of it as possible.

 

Now I know I'm probably completely alone in feeling this way, but tbh? it's what we should have been demanding for years. More cores, better threading, lower power consumption to get to the same place, etc etc.

 

Sadly up until this exact moment Intel have not offered us a massively threaded CPU *with* the ability to overclock it. You could count socket 1366 but TBH this, IMO, was an oversight and a mistake by Intel. Had it not been so they would have left the strap and BCLK separate to the PCIE and SATA clock in 2011. Nope, Intel wanted to make sure you were stuck on their K series quad core chips.  So it's always been "You can have the cores, but not the overclocks... Or the overclocks without the cores".

 

We are still going to be left to one side of course. Intel are already making and selling 12 core 24 thread CPUs but expect to see those in a year or two, unlocked and rebadged as "Extreme" edition CPUs.

 

Right, so with all of that said let's see what these cores can actually do, shall we?

 

Firstly I will explain how I performed this research. In Windows 8 (don't even think about using Windows 7, it does not correctly address any more than 4 cores. Anything more is a bodge and an afterthought and does not work properly) there is a very handy little app in your task manager than can be split up to show you how your cores are being utilised. 

 

Here is how it looks once you split it to the full amount of threads, this is also a 8 core 16t system sitting idle.

 

WIN8coreuseXeon.jpg

 

OK. Now note that each core and thread (so physical and logical) has its own box. The bottom of that box is 0%, the top is 100%. As the graphs fill up they display core use.

 

Core use is recorded for 60 seconds, so basically the method I used was to load up a game, wait for it to get to an intense part of the action (when the rig makes the most noise, basically) and then press ALT and TAB to return to the graph. At which point I simply take a screen shot.

 

Note though - Actual utilization will not be accurate because I am now exited from the game. The only way to monitor that accurately is to run an accessory screen and record it in realtime. Not something I will bother with (yet).

 

So the first game put to the test was Batman Arkham City.

 

BATMANACcoreuseXeon.jpg

 

And as we can see, there is plenty of activity across all 16 threads. What we are looking for though is for the spikes to look the same. This indicates even loading over all threads. Very few of these games do this, but, there is still plenty of activity on each thread indicating high usage.

 

Then it was onto Battlefield 3.

 

BF3coreuseXeon.jpg

 

No surprise. I've tested BF3 on the AMD and it wanted at least six cores with residual load over anything more.

 

Battlefield 4

 

BF4coreuseXeon.jpg

 

OK, so we know BF4 is an 8 core game. However, BF4 tends to lean a lot less hard on the CPU. It seems DICE have been doing some work to make sure the GPU gets the harder job. Good job, DICE !

 

The first genuine surprise of the day, COD : Ghosts.

 

CODGHOSTScoreuseXeon.jpg

 

OK, looks like it could well be a modern console port then. Then it was on to Crysis 2. Again, I already knew what was going to happen here...

 

Crysis2coreusexeon.jpg

 

Only really wants four cores, spends most of its time leaning on two. Not so good then. 

 

Time for Crysis 3

 

CRYSIS3coreuseXeon.jpg

 

Much, much better. However, I am also aware that different levels in Crysis 3 change the dynamics. Certain levels want CPU cores, certain levels leave them to one side and call on the GPU. This is why the AMD vs Intel results in Crysis 3 are all over the place. However, I still say you're better off with the cores tbh. Time for Far Cry 3

 

FARCRY3coreuseXeon.jpg

 

And we can see that it's kind of lame. Far Cry 3 may use the same engine as Crysis 3 but it's clearly nowhere near as demanding, or complex. I admit the results were taken right at the very beginning of the game and thus, are likely to change as the game goes on.

 

Time for Hitman : Absolution.

 

HITMANcoreuseXeon.jpg

 

Is one of the better games to demonstrate that it can thread very well. However, Hitman is a benchmark after all. I wish more games contained benchmarks tbh. OK so it was time to try something older.

 

RAGE by ID, using the TECH engine.

 

IDRAGEcoreuseXeon.jpg

 

Wow. Now this game is what? three? four years old? yet still likes to thread itself well. God bless John Carmack, the guy clearly wants what I want.

 

Now let's see what Metro : Last Light is doing.

 

METROLLCOREUSE.jpg

 

And again we see nice even core loads. It's pretty apparent that Metro loves having cores at its disposal. It allowed a CPU that won in absolutely nothing to beat another CPU simply by threading itself properly. Good show !

 

Time for some Tomb Raider benching.

 

Tombraiderxeoncoreuse.jpg

 

Again, wants the cores. However, never truly loads them up over more than 50%. So in this instance again the Intel managed to produce better results than the AMD. Simply because the core loads are low, but the more cores you have the more the load is spread.

 

And finally it was time for Wolfenstein : The New Order.

 

WOLFENSTEINcoreuseXeon.jpg

 

And once again we see a pretty even distribution over all 16 threads. This is because the game is running on ID TECH, which Bethesda and others have been using for a while. This means more support for the future.

 

Conclusion.

 

Phew. I'm absolutely bloody knackered now. But, we can clearly see that the "Four cores is enough" argument belongs where it should be left; in 2010. Things have changed, consoles have changed, the ports over to PC have changed.

 

This may well pave the way perfectly for Intel's 8 core chip. TBH? like many times in the past they've left AMD to do all of the hard work on something that they saw as a waste of time. Now though? they have no choice really. Games and apps are now becoming more highly threaded by the day, and users will demand processors that can make full use of this.

 

I could well have sat here and benchmarked even more games that use the cores. There are quite a few that I am aware of, but sadly I only have so much time in the day.

 

Hope you enjoyed reading :) may well be a bit of an eye opener :)

Area 51 2014. Intel 5820k@ 4.4ghz. MSI X99.16gb Quad channel ram. AMD Fury X.Asus RAIDR.OCZ ARC 480gb SSD. Velociraptor 600gb. 2tb WD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty nice. Where did you get that Xeon for £110?

"How hard can it be?" - Jeremy Clarkson

"Speed has never killed anyone. Suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets you." - Jeremy Clarkson

 

"There's an old saying that God exists in your search for him. I just want you to understand that I ain't looking." - Leslie Nielsen

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty nice. Where did you get that Xeon for £110?

 

Ebay. Engineering sample, shouldn't really be sold so they go for peanuts usually :)

 

Note though, even though it's cooler, quieter and using less power it's not quite as quick, so don't over pay for one because they're totally locked down.

 

Price, performance. The £110 was about spot on.

Area 51 2014. Intel 5820k@ 4.4ghz. MSI X99.16gb Quad channel ram. AMD Fury X.Asus RAIDR.OCZ ARC 480gb SSD. Velociraptor 600gb. 2tb WD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ebay. Engineering sample, shouldn't really be sold so they go for peanuts usually :)

 

Note though, even though it's cooler, quieter and using less power it's not quite as quick, so don't over pay for one because they're totally locked down.

 

Price, performance. The £110 was about spot on.

 

Ah, the engineering samples. Shady business those :P

"How hard can it be?" - Jeremy Clarkson

"Speed has never killed anyone. Suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets you." - Jeremy Clarkson

 

"There's an old saying that God exists in your search for him. I just want you to understand that I ain't looking." - Leslie Nielsen

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanky you OP for this!

 

Can't wait to see Haswell-E!

 

Spoiler

CPU:Intel Xeon X5660 @ 4.2 GHz RAM:6x2 GB 1600MHz DDR3 MB:Asus P6T Deluxe GPU:Asus GTX 660 TI OC Cooler:Akasa Nero 3


SSD:OCZ Vertex 3 120 GB HDD:2x640 GB WD Black Fans:2xCorsair AF 120 PSU:Seasonic 450 W 80+ Case:Thermaltake Xaser VI MX OS:Windows 10
Speakers:Altec Lansing MX5021 Keyboard:Razer Blackwidow 2013 Mouse:Logitech MX Master Monitor:Dell U2412M Headphones: Logitech G430

Big thanks to Damikiller37 for making me an awesome Intel 4004 out of trixels!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanky you OP for this!

 

Can't wait to see Haswell-E!

 

It's going to be interesting, that's for sure !!

 

Part 3 of the research is to run game benchmarks, enter bios, cut the cores, run them again until we're all the way down to 2 cores to see if it makes a difference ;)

Area 51 2014. Intel 5820k@ 4.4ghz. MSI X99.16gb Quad channel ram. AMD Fury X.Asus RAIDR.OCZ ARC 480gb SSD. Velociraptor 600gb. 2tb WD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

This looks promising for the future (I remember when Intel stopped going for crazy high clocks and started power efficiency and threading after the Pentium 4), and although I'd like a lower TDP and stronger single-core performance, I'm happy for the 8320's extra cores.

 

Maybe somewhere down the line we'll get mobile-device power efficiency, tons of cores AND the ability to overclock nicely when we need it (Crysis 4 or 5 :P). I mean, GPU's have had tons of cores for a while.

 

Anyway, it'll be nice to see what difference cutting cores makes on this Xeon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now let's hope DX12 does what they say and it's scalable core threading that puts the loads on all cores.

 

We don't specifically *need* DX12 for that. What we need is low level coding that can spread a load properly against X amount of cores. 

 

Mantle only works when coded for. That's always the kicker, making the masses help you out. SLI - Nvidia have been fighting tooth and nail for years trying to make it work so that it's something they can sell. Triple SLI, Quad SLI - forget it.

 

Here's how it works...

 

Game dev decides to make game. Game dev gets kit from Sony and Microsoft. Game dev codes game, using an engine that was designed for those consoles.

 

Then they have to cross compile it for the PC. SLI, takes time. CPU handling, takes time. Core limits, takes time.

 

The idea is to get it over to the PC spending as little time as is possible, then stick your hand out for the payday.

 

I read an article where they interviewed the guys who wrote Bioshock, and apparently if they were to code in support for 4 GPUs and X amount of cores the actual number of units sold that would actually use all of that hardware was so tiny it simply isn't worth the time and money invested.

 

See that core use? hah ! that has absolutely nothing* to do with those devs saying "Hey, let's make sure this game hauls ass on a PC" it's simply that the console it was coded for had eight cores, so the engines they're using wants cores.

 

* All apart from John Carmack... And Crysis 3... John actually wants to see computer hardware doing what it should.

 

We also need to remember that some of it comes down to Windows, too. IE - when Windows 7 came out quad cores were still a luxury and everything was pretty much dual or single core threaded. The problem was apparent when BF3 came out and was crawling on CPUs that had hyperthreading.. It wanted six cores, Windows didn't get it. Cue - lots of bodges and updates trying to fix the issue, when really the issue was at a kernel level and thus the kernel needed a rewrite..

 

Cue Windows 8. AMD hounded Microsoft, we now have an OS that understands cores. And see, now, even if a game doesn't use 8 cores Windows 8 can actually load whatever it likes how it likes. So for example, it can reserve a core or two to run the underlying OS and then let the others loose on throwing the game around.

 

And that's absolutely vital to AMD, who make their living from core counts, not IPC and single threaded performance.

 

This is why we should have been demanding cores, and core support. Not overclockable quad core CPUs that need to be thrashed to within an inch of their life. More cores, less voltage, lower clocks = similar results to quad core shitting its guts through its mouth. Means less heat, means no need for expensive cooling... Man, I could go on forever.

Area 51 2014. Intel 5820k@ 4.4ghz. MSI X99.16gb Quad channel ram. AMD Fury X.Asus RAIDR.OCZ ARC 480gb SSD. Velociraptor 600gb. 2tb WD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great test, thanks for this OP.

CPU: I7 3770k @4.8 ghz | GPU: GTX 1080 FE SLI | RAM: 16gb (2x8gb) gskill sniper 1866mhz | Mobo: Asus P8Z77-V LK | PSU: Rosewill Hive 1000W | Case: Corsair 750D | Cooler:Corsair H110| Boot: 2X Kingston v300 120GB RAID 0 | Storage: 1 WD 1tb green | 2 3TB seagate Barracuda|

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Preach it, bro! I wanna see cores used more effectively. Maybe, it'll mean that the longevity of current high core-count processors (like the FX series) will be increased, not only because of running more cores and producing less heat to get the same performance, but because if the use of cores can be done more effectively, then games further down the line that make use of 16 cores will still run on 8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Preach it, bro! I wanna see cores used more effectively. Maybe, it'll mean that the longevity of current high core-count processors (like the FX series) will be increased, not only because of running more cores and producing less heat to get the same performance, but because if the use of cores can be done more effectively, then games further down the line that make use of 16 cores will still run on 8.

 

AMD are already making and selling 16 core CPUs. They also allow four of them to be ran at once. 48 cores. To top it all off and rub it in our faces even more, they're not even very expensive.

 

So why on earth do people sit around saying four cores is enough. I just, don't, get it.

 

The new consoles have 8 cores. IIRC two are dedicated to the under workings of the OS and the console itself, the rest are fair game to coders. Now think about it, why doesn't Windows work like that?

 

We're palmed off with inefficient shit, basically. DX 12? It's something that it should always have been. So Carmack could not get his way and stay on Open GL. No one listened, every one wanted the easy way out.

 

Then along comes Mantle and Microsoft shit it and say "Hey we can do that too !" fuckers should have done it years ago.

 

It's a sad day that PC performance and technology is held back by what amounts to nothing more than a poorly powered underclocked toy sitting under a television.

Area 51 2014. Intel 5820k@ 4.4ghz. MSI X99.16gb Quad channel ram. AMD Fury X.Asus RAIDR.OCZ ARC 480gb SSD. Velociraptor 600gb. 2tb WD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice review. I like it. Makes me want a Xeon that's a K series SKU. That would be absolutely awesome.

Main rig on profile

VAULT - File Server

Spoiler

Intel Core i5 11400 w/ Shadow Rock LP, 2x16GB SP GAMING 3200MHz CL16, ASUS PRIME Z590-A, 2x LSI 9211-8i, Fractal Define 7, 256GB Team MP33, 3x 6TB WD Red Pro (general storage), 3x 1TB Seagate Barracuda (dumping ground), 3x 8TB WD White-Label (Plex) (all 3 arrays in their respective Windows Parity storage spaces), Corsair RM750x, Windows 11 Education

Sleeper HP Pavilion A6137C

Spoiler

Intel Core i7 6700K @ 4.4GHz, 4x8GB G.SKILL Ares 1800MHz CL10, ASUS Z170M-E D3, 128GB Team MP33, 1TB Seagate Barracuda, 320GB Samsung Spinpoint (for video capture), MSI GTX 970 100ME, EVGA 650G1, Windows 10 Pro

Mac Mini (Late 2020)

Spoiler

Apple M1, 8GB RAM, 256GB, macOS Sonoma

Consoles: Softmodded 1.4 Xbox w/ 500GB HDD, Xbox 360 Elite 120GB Falcon, XB1X w/2TB MX500, Xbox Series X, PS1 1001, PS2 Slim 70000 w/ FreeMcBoot, PS4 Pro 7015B 1TB (retired), PS5 Digital, Nintendo Switch OLED, Nintendo Wii RVL-001 (black)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

AMD are already making and selling 16 core CPUs. They also allow four of them to be ran at once. 48 cores. To top it all off and rub it in our faces even more, they're not even very expensive.

You need to check your math. 16x4=/=48. 16x4=64

 

That aside, Intel makes 15 core CPUs in the E7-4000v2 line. They cost god like sums of money, but they also crap all over AMD's 16 core CPUs on server workloads.

Spoiler

Desktop <dead?> 

Spoiler

P8P67-WS/Z77 Extreme4/H61DE-S3. 4x4 Samsung 1600MHz/1x8GB Gskill 1866MHzC9. 750W OCZ ZT/750w Corsair CX. GTX480/Sapphire HD7950 1.05GHz (OC). Adata SP600 256GB x2/SSG 830 128GB/1TB Hatachi Deskstar/3TB Seagate. Windows XP/7Pro, Windows 10 on Test drive. FreeBSD and Fedora on liveboot USB3 drives. 

 

Spoiler

Laptop <Works Beyond Spec>

Spoiler

HP-DM3. Pentium U5400. 2x4GB DDR3 1600MHz (Samsung iirc). Intel HD. 512GB SSD. 8TB USB drive (Western Digital). Coil Wine!!!!!! (Is that a spec?). 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice review. I like it. Makes me want a Xeon that's a K series SKU. That would be absolutely awesome.

 

Haswell E. 8 core unlocked Xeon...... For $1300 or so hahahaha. Sandybridge E, Ivybridge E. They were too lazy to even change the socket on those :D

 

 

You need to check your math. 16x4=/=48. 16x4=64

 

That aside, Intel makes 15 core CPUs in the E7-4000v2 line. They cost god like sums of money, but they also crap all over AMD's 16 core CPUs on server workloads.

 

haha that's what happens when you spend three days collecting data :/

 

Intels will crap all over AMD in any area of the market (apart from APUs) but you pay for it. How much is that 15 core? $3000?

 

Ninja edit. OK, let's take a look at a 10 core 20t Intel.

 

intel.jpg

 

And a 16 core AMD.

 

AMD.jpg

 

Intel dominates on everything, including the price.

Area 51 2014. Intel 5820k@ 4.4ghz. MSI X99.16gb Quad channel ram. AMD Fury X.Asus RAIDR.OCZ ARC 480gb SSD. Velociraptor 600gb. 2tb WD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Haswell E. 8 core unlocked Xeon...... For $1300 or so hahahaha. Sandybridge E, Ivybridge E. They were too lazy to even change the socket on those :D

 

 

 

haha that's what happens when you spend three days collecting data :/

 

Intels will crap all over AMD in any area of the market (apart from APUs) but you pay for it. How much is that 15 core? $3000?

 

Noooooo. Can someone give me $1,700 (get all the necessities)? :D

Main rig on profile

VAULT - File Server

Spoiler

Intel Core i5 11400 w/ Shadow Rock LP, 2x16GB SP GAMING 3200MHz CL16, ASUS PRIME Z590-A, 2x LSI 9211-8i, Fractal Define 7, 256GB Team MP33, 3x 6TB WD Red Pro (general storage), 3x 1TB Seagate Barracuda (dumping ground), 3x 8TB WD White-Label (Plex) (all 3 arrays in their respective Windows Parity storage spaces), Corsair RM750x, Windows 11 Education

Sleeper HP Pavilion A6137C

Spoiler

Intel Core i7 6700K @ 4.4GHz, 4x8GB G.SKILL Ares 1800MHz CL10, ASUS Z170M-E D3, 128GB Team MP33, 1TB Seagate Barracuda, 320GB Samsung Spinpoint (for video capture), MSI GTX 970 100ME, EVGA 650G1, Windows 10 Pro

Mac Mini (Late 2020)

Spoiler

Apple M1, 8GB RAM, 256GB, macOS Sonoma

Consoles: Softmodded 1.4 Xbox w/ 500GB HDD, Xbox 360 Elite 120GB Falcon, XB1X w/2TB MX500, Xbox Series X, PS1 1001, PS2 Slim 70000 w/ FreeMcBoot, PS4 Pro 7015B 1TB (retired), PS5 Digital, Nintendo Switch OLED, Nintendo Wii RVL-001 (black)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked on ebay for engineering samples and they are piss cheap, one question though, how much customs did you have to pay when it arrived?

My PC specs; Processor: Intel i5 2500K @4.6GHz, Graphics card: Sapphire AMD R9 Nano 4GB DD Overclocked @1050MHz Core and 550 MHz Memory. Hard Drives: 500GB Seagate Barracuda 7200 RPM, 2TB Western Digital Green Drive, Motherboard: Asus P8Z77-V , Power Supply: OCZ ZS series 750W 80+ Bronze certified, Case: NZXT S340, Memory: Corsair Vengance series Ram, Dual Channel kit @ 1866 Mhz, 10-11-10-30 Timings, 4x4 GB DIMMs. Cooler: CoolerMaster Seidon 240V

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked on ebay for engineering samples and they are piss cheap, one question though, how much customs did you have to pay when it arrived?

 

I got mine in the UK. There were two, but the other was Sandybridge so slightly slower. Make sure you check your board for compatability, check for the V2 Xeon (which are Ivy) and make sure you see one with 20mb cache as that indicates it can handle 8 cores.

 

Either that or study the Xeons a bit, and compare them with the ES. They're never quite the same but you can usually get a close match. Apparently Asrock are the best.

 

Edit. ES2 on these chips usually indicates V2, or Ivy. ES is Sandy.

Area 51 2014. Intel 5820k@ 4.4ghz. MSI X99.16gb Quad channel ram. AMD Fury X.Asus RAIDR.OCZ ARC 480gb SSD. Velociraptor 600gb. 2tb WD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I think we all can agree that intel is the best

Emmh... Maybe consider killing yourself before you talk to me?

 

Pople on this forum though some of them had a brain, turns out, no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

haha that's what happens when you spend three days collecting data :/

 

Intels will crap all over AMD in any area of the market (apart from APUs) but you pay for it. How much is that 15 core? $3000?

Even in APUs you get better performance with the Intel dual core CPUs almost always, aside from a very few games, but then you can also throw a decent sub $100 GPU at it and still crap all over AMD.

 

It is upwards of $4500 iirc, but to be honest if you are doing work that needs 16 cores and are using an AMD processor, you are doing it wrong. The IPC difference alone would make a world of difference (looking at hours to days of difference even at 15 vs 16 cores ONLY). 

 

*That is not to say that AMD is the wrong choice always. It is to say that AMD needs more cores to comete at equal levels.

Spoiler

Desktop <dead?> 

Spoiler

P8P67-WS/Z77 Extreme4/H61DE-S3. 4x4 Samsung 1600MHz/1x8GB Gskill 1866MHzC9. 750W OCZ ZT/750w Corsair CX. GTX480/Sapphire HD7950 1.05GHz (OC). Adata SP600 256GB x2/SSG 830 128GB/1TB Hatachi Deskstar/3TB Seagate. Windows XP/7Pro, Windows 10 on Test drive. FreeBSD and Fedora on liveboot USB3 drives. 

 

Spoiler

Laptop <Works Beyond Spec>

Spoiler

HP-DM3. Pentium U5400. 2x4GB DDR3 1600MHz (Samsung iirc). Intel HD. 512GB SSD. 8TB USB drive (Western Digital). Coil Wine!!!!!! (Is that a spec?). 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I think we all can agree that intel is the best

 

If you think that a £700 CPU that can't beat a £100 one is the best? knock yourself out.

Area 51 2014. Intel 5820k@ 4.4ghz. MSI X99.16gb Quad channel ram. AMD Fury X.Asus RAIDR.OCZ ARC 480gb SSD. Velociraptor 600gb. 2tb WD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think that a £700 CPU that can't beat a £100 one is the best? knock yourself out.

Lol are you mad? Maybe if you have a decent budget you'd afford it

Emmh... Maybe consider killing yourself before you talk to me?

 

Pople on this forum though some of them had a brain, turns out, no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×