Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Jonathan Lemmens

Xeon E5450 vs. i5 6500 Surprising results?

Recommended Posts

Posted · Original PosterOP

A few days ago I've built a new PC for a friend of mine and because this was the first Skylake CPU I got my hands on, I wanted to do some benchmarking. I soon noticed that in Cinebench this i5 6500 was performing very close to what my modded Xeon E5450 achieves. The specs:

CPU-Z.jpg

PC 1:

i5 6500 CPU at stock 3.2-3.6GHz

ASRock H110M-ITX/acMotherboard

16GB 2133MHz DDR4 Kingston ValueRAM Memory

240GB Adata Premier SP550 SSD

 

PC 2:

Xeon E5450 OC to 3,9GHz (771-775 mod)

ASUS Maximus Formula II Motherboard

8GB 1066MHz DDR2 Corsair XMS Memory

120GB Kingston V300 SSD

 

I know I am comparing an overclocked "top of the line" PC from 8 years ago to a midrange PC of today, but still the results are surprising to me:

i5-Xeon.jpg

At similar clock speeds the i5 (left) performs about 20% better in Cinebench R15 than the Xeon (right), but with a mild overclock to 3.6GHz (the i5's turbo frequency) on the Xeon the difference drops to 4%. When I set the OC on the Xeon to 3.9GHz it outperforms the i5 by about 5%. 

 

This is just one benchmark and by no means a scientific experiment, but considering the fact that this Xeon is a 45nm chip from 6 generations ago, Intel's claim of a 10% IPC improvement between generations doesn't seem to be true in this case. I'm not saying one is better than the other and obviously there are differences like cache size, power draw, heat output and other features that I completely ignore in this comparison, but purely form a performance standpoint I would have expected more from the Skylake PC.

 

Let me know what you guys think, or if I made a mistake or overlooked something. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

huh. cool results. would not have expected that seeing as the Xeon is around $50 here and the I5 $250, there are other features and stuff with the I5 but still, thats pertty cool. i first though the Xeon had hyperthreading but nope it dosent so this is really cool to see :) 


I spent $2500 on building my PC and all i do with it is play no games atm & watch anime at 1080p(finally)...

Builds:

The Toaster Project! Northern Bee!

 

The original LAN PC build log! (Old, dead and replaced by The Toaster Project & 5.0)

Spoiler

"Here is some advice that might have gotten lost somewhere along the way in your life. 

 

#1. Treat others as you would like to be treated.

#2. It's best to keep your mouth shut; and appear to be stupid, rather than open it and remove all doubt.

#3. There is nothing "wrong" with being wrong. Learning from a mistake can be more valuable than not making one in the first place.

 

Follow these simple rules in life, and I promise you, things magically get easier. " - MageTank 31-10-2016

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's cinebench. And FX 8350 also scores higher than i5s

But I need to ask if you've intalled the proper drivers for your MB because that score is a bit lower than expected:

cW7JKfU.png

The result can be higher if using dual channel configuration or higher freq. RAM

 


Soft and clean.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
12 minutes ago, DEcobra11 said:

Well, it's cinebench. And FX 8350 also scores higher than i5s

But I need to ask if you've intalled the proper drivers for your MB because that score is a bit lower than expected:

cW7JKfU.png

The result can be higher if using dual channel configuration or higher freq. RAM

 

The memory is running in dual channel, though it is only 2133MHz. I didn't know that RAM frequencies had that much of an impact in Cinebench.

But on the other hand the RAM in my Xeon PC is running at 1066MHz (1083 beacuse of the OC), two times slower and it's half the capacity. So shouldn't it then be even more surprising that my scores are so close? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jonathan Lemmens said:

The memory is running in dual channel, though it is only 2133MHz. I didn't know that RAM frequencies had that much of an impact in Cinebench.

But on the other hand the RAM in my Xeon PC is running at 1066MHz (1083 beacuse of the OC), than twice as slow and it's half the capacity. So shouldn't it then be even more surprising that my scores are so close? 

Just saying that Pic I posted is with single channel @2133 MHz

What I mean is that you've something crippling performance in that system (Background applications (steam, skype, your internet explorer, etc...) , some 1151 mbs have wonky support for W7 or needs recent chipset drivers)


Soft and clean.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
1 minute ago, DEcobra11 said:

Just saying that Pic I posted is with single channel 2133 MHz

What I mean is that you've something crippling performance in that system (Background applications (steam, skype, your internet explorer, etc...) , some 1151 mbs have wonky support for W7 or needs recent chipset drivers)

I see.

I just did a fresh install of Windows 7 professional and I have the latest motherboard drivers installed but I'm still waiting for windows updates. Could that be it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jonathan Lemmens said:

I see.

I just did a fresh install of Windows 7 professional and I have the latest motherboard drivers installed but I'm still waiting for windows updates. Could that be it?

Give a try, but:

Just saying, with my MB I got result around ~380 in CB15 in W7 but it isn't the only scenario where I got lower performance than expected and I've even contacted MSI with no response though. I dual boot W7 and W10 (IDK why CB recognizes it as 8 xD) but the problem is that I need W7 for older software. It isn't that W7 get lower performance, there's something with the platform support because with other CPUs I've tried there's no performance difference.


Soft and clean.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Jonathan Lemmens said:

So is the problem between W7 and the H110 chipset or just W7 and Skylake?

Chipset probably, but can be drivers aswell. I'm waiting response from MSI as I said before


Soft and clean.

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


×