Mistake? Xeon e5 2683v4 over 5930k

[Marcus Torre DeProspero]

So I bought a Xeon e5 2683v4 for 340$ instead of getting a 5930k for 420$. Was this even a good choice? I've always wanted a Xeon cpu but never really worried about it until I saw 16 cores and 32 threads. I thought it might help and I have seen much of an improvement from my 4790k. They game at pretty much the same level but xeon beats the 4790k in just about everything else. But what about the 5930k? What if that beast could do better. I guess I'll never know............ Until my next paycheck. So I'd like to hear what you guys would have done my situation. or any other comments I guess.

[Soundsystem90]

5930K can OC, that's about it.

 

You should never buy a Xeon just because it's named "Xeon" stupid.

[Marcus Torre DeProspero]

2 minutes ago, Soundsystem90 said:

5930K can OC, that's about it.

 

You should never buy a Xeon just because it's named "Xeon" stupid.

That's not why I bought it. I do 3d animation and I render a ton of videos on a daily basis but I also have to game to record footage so I thought the extra cores would help?

[DoctorJohnSmith]

19 minutes ago, Soundsystem90 said:

5930K can OC, that's about it.

 

You should never buy a Xeon just because it's named "Xeon" stupid.

A xeon can also be overclocked, via the baseclock method.

I think.

[Guest]

Most modern games do certainly take advantage of multiple cores, however it only extends up to a certain point. Which is usually quad core with hyper threading. Beyond that games will only see real benefits from higher clocks. The E5-2683v4 is a wicked processor for heavily threaded applications such as you do, but you are unlikely to see any benefit, and possibly some loss of performance in gaming due to the low clock speeds (2.1-3.0Ghz) compared to the 6700k (upto 4.4Ghz). The comparison to the 5930k is a little difficult since they are different architectures, but generally speaking it would be stronger per core (higher clock speed helps) than the 2683v4, but weaker than the 6700k - but with 2 cores more than the 6700k and 10 cores less than the 2683v4. Sure the E5-2683v4 might help in capturing game footage while gaming, but the games may run a little slower. 

 

It's hard to say which is better for you, maybe both? 

 

EDIT: This might help 

P.S. Edited for clarity

[Guest]

I must ask also, where did you find the processor so cheap? As far as I understand the Xeon E5-2683v4 is the latest generation chip, running at a street price of $1880 USD or there abouts? 

[SLAYR]

27 minutes ago, Marcus Torre DeProspero said:

That's not why I bought it. I do 3d animation and I render a ton of videos on a daily basis but I also have to game to record footage so I thought the extra cores would help?

If you use the threads the xeon is better.

It will get about 2100 points on cinebench r15 multithreaded and an overclocked 5830k you are looking at 1600 points at 5.1GHz. With gaming though nothing is optimized to use more then 8 threads yet so it will do worse there.

[Marcus Torre DeProspero]

22 minutes ago, VanguardScar said:

I must ask also, where did you find the processor so cheap? As far as I understand the Xeon E5-2683v4 is the latest generation chip, running at a street price of $1880 USD or there abouts? 

It's on eBay bro

[2FA]

4 minutes ago, Marcus Torre DeProspero said:

It's on eBay bro

So an Engineering Sample then.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Marcus Torre DeProspero said:

It's on eBay bro

Looking on Ebay the only E5-2683v4's in the $350 USD range are ES versions. Engineering Samples may or may not be final shipping hardware, and are certainly not meant to be re-sold as they are technically loaned and property of Intel. Retail products might have tweaks or issues ironed out because of testing with the engineering samples. Sometimes engineering samples don't run at full retail speed, and looking at at least one image suggests that a few are only capable of 2.5Ghz max, not 3.0Ghz that the retail ships with. Then again, the chips might be fine. 

I just mention this as it might affect how you compare the 5930k, or even the 4790k, to the E5-2683v4. A lower clocked ES would swing the comparison solidly towards the 5930k & 4790k, at least for gaming & video recording. 

[scottyseng]

2 hours ago, VanguardScar said:

I must ask also, where did you find the processor so cheap? As far as I understand the Xeon E5-2683v4 is the latest generation chip, running at a street price of $1880 USD or there abouts? 

It's an engineering sample, I bought a previous gen Xeon for my NAS and it's been just fine.

 

3 hours ago, Marcus Torre DeProspero said:

So I bought a Xeon e5 2683v4 for 340$ instead of getting a 5930k for 420$. Was this even a good choice? I've always wanted a Xeon cpu but never really worried about it until I saw 16 cores and 32 threads. I thought it might help and I have seen much of an improvement from my 4790k. They game at pretty much the same level but xeon beats the 4790k in just about everything else. But what about the 5930k? What if that beast could do better. I guess I'll never know............ Until my next paycheck. So I'd like to hear what you guys would have done my situation. or any other comments I guess.

I have a Xeon E5 2695V3 (14 core, 28 thread, 2.2GHz) and it is faster than my cousin's 5820K at 4.5GHz, but the main deal with the Xeons is that they just less power than the overclocked CPUs (Matter more when you have a lot of these in a render farm). My Xeon runs at 0.89v at full load where I remember we were approaching 1.35v on the 5820K. My Xeon runs on a Cooler Master 92mm cooler at 60C (I can't recall the model at the moment) where my cousin's 5820K was approaching 86C on a H110i GTX.

 

However, if you are a gamer, getting the Xeon was a bad choice...most games use a few cores and the lower clock speed of the Xeon will choke the GPU hard. The Xeon will win in anything multithreaded, but if you need single thread power, the desktop CPUs overclocked will carry the win. It really depends on your workloads. I stuck my 980 Ti into my NAS for the lolz (Desktop PC is 2500K at 4.6GHz) and tried to game...yeah...the GPU was being choked bad with only CPU one core (two thread) being pinned to 100% and the GPU jumping usage as it waited for the CPU to catch up.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, scottyseng said:

I have a Xeon E5 2695V3 (14 core, 28 thread, 2.2GHz) and it is faster than my cousin's 5820K at 4.5GHz

Out of curiosity is your E5 2695V3 pinned at 2.2Ghz or does it go up to the full 3.3Ghz of retail? Also in what scenario are you saying it's faster? I can totally understand heavily multi-threaded workloads, but per core the overclocked 5820k should beat it out with the greater clock speed.

 

1 hour ago, scottyseng said:

but the main deal with the Xeons is that they just less power than the overclocked CPUs

Certainly, it's generally accepted that overclocking increases power draw and heat exponentially and Xeons, I believe, are usually tuned for better efficiency due to their use in dense servers, which means when it comes to power and efficiency the Xeons likely have the competition beat. 

[scottyseng]

50 minutes ago, VanguardScar said:

Out of curiosity is your E5 2695V3 pinned at 2.2Ghz or does it go up to the full 3.3Ghz of retail? Also in what scenario are you saying it's faster? I can totally understand heavily multi-threaded workloads, but per core the overclocked 5820k should beat it out with the greater clock speed.

Oh, sorry, I meant faster as a whole in multithreaded programs. Of course the Xeon gets killed in anything single thread, which is why I mention it's terrible for gaming (At least the single threaded games I play...which are RPG games...).

 

Well, the thing is with the Engineering Chips is that they may or may not have some features disabled (Heck, some may even have unpatched bugs...but rare). I think Turbo Boost is somehow affected on my chip, the highest I have never seen it go is 2.7GHz on a single core. When all cores are pinned, it will stay at 2.2GHz in total. The temps are in check as well. I don't have a retail chip so I don't know if the CPUs actually stay boosted at 3.3GHz as a whole or just for single core loads. I definitely would not run ES chips in a production server (By that point I think you would have the funds to buy the retail CPUs).

 

Yeah, the Xeon uses less power than my overclocked 2500K which I still have trouble believing considering how much faster it is at rendering. Ideally, you'd have one PC for gaming (6600K or 6700K) and another for rendering / workstation load. In my case, I'm upgrading my 2500K to a 7700K when it comes out. My NAS will get upgraded with several 980 Tis (Since they're being thrown away for 1080s / 1070s) for rendering / heavy workloads.

 

Yes, it is bizarre that my NAS has a better CPU than my main PC...I didn't intend to make the NAS so overpowered CPU wise, but man, it was so cheap at the time.

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, scottyseng said:

Oh, sorry, I meant faster as a whole in multithreaded programs. Of course the Xeon gets killed in anything single thread, which is why I mention it's terrible for gaming (At least the single threaded games I play...which are RPG games...).

 

Well, the thing is with the Engineering Chips is that they may or may not have some features disabled (Heck, some may even have unpatched bugs...but rare). I think Turbo Boost is somehow affected on my chip, the highest I have never seen it go is 2.7GHz on a single core. When all cores are pinned, it will stay at 2.2GHz in total. The temps are in check as well. I don't have a retail chip so I don't know if the CPUs actually stay boosted at 3.3GHz as a whole or just for single core loads. I definitely would not run ES chips in a production server (By that point I think you would have the funds to buy the retail CPUs).

 

Yeah, the Xeon uses less power than my overclocked 2500K which I still have trouble believing considering how much faster it is at rendering. Ideally, you'd have one PC for gaming (6600K or 6700K) and another for rendering / workstation load. In my case, I'm upgrading my 2500K to a 7700K when it comes out. My NAS will get upgraded with several 980 Tis (Since they're being thrown away for 1080s / 1070s) for rendering / heavy workloads.

 

Yes, it is bizarre that my NAS has a better CPU than my main PC...I didn't intend to make the NAS so overpowered CPU wise, but man, it was so cheap at the time.

That makes much more sense, thank you for clearing that up.

The retail versions of that chip should get pinned at 2.8GHz when exceeding 6 cores under load, and only see 3.3Ghz while 2 cores or less are being utilized.

As per this anandtech article -  http://www.anandtech.com/show/8730/intel-haswellep-xeon-14-core-review-e52695-v3-and-e52697-v3

As for your NAS.... That's ridiculous. My dinky little NAS, in comparison, runs a i3-2100T, 24TB of raw storage and can easily transcode a 100Mb/s video file to 20 clients at a time. It's got 12 less cores... 12. And you're planning on running multiple 980 Ti's? Wow. This sounds less like a NAS and more like a general purpose server.. How much RAM are you running? 

[scottyseng]

9 minutes ago, VanguardScar said:

-snip-

Ah, that makes a bit more sense why I was getting usually 2.6-2.7GHz. Well, at least it's not broken.

 

Well, I was actually originally planning on using a i3 at the time, but I was like...hmm, I could spend a bit more and make it render stuff for me...but then it kind of went out of hand...It has 32GB of DDR4. It actually outspecs my main PC in every way. It has the faster SSD, and much more storage. 60TB, six 4TB WD Reds (550MB/s in RAID6), and nine 4TB WD Re SAS drives (1.1GB/s in RAID6) on a LSI MegaRAID 9260 8i. Yep, multiple 980 Tis are the plan, they really go well with rendering 3D models using a CUDA based renderer. This thing also doesn't need to render thumbnails for lightroom...even with RAW files, there's no lag because of how fast the CPU crunches the previews.

 

I originally had a FirePro V7900 in my main PC, but I got hooked to this RPG game ported from the PS4...but the FirePro was lagging bad...14-20 fps...so I was like no, ain't having any of this, and bought a used 980 Ti because a 1060 / 1070 cost too much at the time (both were overpriced and super limited stock).