General Intel HEDT Xeon/i7 Discussion

[Ben a cava]

13 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

What what is? 

The x58

[Zando_]

3 minutes ago, Ben a cava said:

The x58

X58 is the predecessor of X99, which came before X299. Basically Intel's HEDT chipset, with higher core counts and such than the usual consumer chips. It ran from about 2008-2011/12 or so IIRC. As far as mobos go most higher end ones from ASUS, Gigabyte, and I think MSI are good, and for CPUs the X5675 is usually the best bang for the buck and good for overclocking. You can pay more for an X5690 though, then on the lower end there's the X5650 and some others in between all that. If you don't need higher core counts you can grab like 4 4c/8t e series Xeons for $12 or so, they usually overclock decently and are easier to cool. Then there's the i7s, they're pretty much the exact same as the same core-count Xeons except more expensive because it says "i7". 

[Ben a cava]

1 minute ago, Zando Bob said:

X58 is the predecessor of X99, which came before X299. Basically Intel's HEDT chipset, with higher core counts and such than the usual consumer chips. It ran from about 2008-2011/12 or so IIRC. As far as mobos go most higher end ones from ASUS, Gigabyte, and I think MSI are good, and for CPUs the X5675 is usually the best bang for the buck and good for overclocking. You can pay more for an X5690 though, then on the lower end there's the X5650 and some others in between all that. If you don't need higher core counts you can grab like 4 4c/8t e series Xeons for $12 or so, they usually overclock decently and are easier to cool. Then there's the i7s, they're pretty much the exact same as the same core-count Xeons except more expensive because it says "i7". 

What 4$

[Zando_]

1 minute ago, Ben a cava said:

What 4$

? 

[Pasi123]

1 hour ago, Zando Bob said:

X58 is the predecessor of X99, which came before X299.

Actually it's the predecessor of X79 and the successor of X48.

 

925X, 955X, 975X, X38, X48, X58, X79, X99, X299. X58 was the first one to use different socket than the normal consumer motherboards, all of the older ones had a LGA775 socket.

[Zando_]

24 minutes ago, Pasi123 said:

Actually it's the predecessor of X79 and the successor of X48.

 

925X, 955X, 975X, X38, X48, X58, X79, X99, X299. X58 was the first one to use different socket than the normal consumer motherboards, all of the older ones had a LGA775 socket.

Ah, forgot about X79, nice catch. 

[bmichaels556]

I just feel like randomly butting in here... Why the hell are you guys buying $100+ dollar motherboards and overclocking!? It significantly kills any price/performance benefits of using X58. 

 

Right now, I'm running dual X5675's in a Dell Precision T7500. Got it for $140. Came with L-series Xeons, so no good for my uses. Got two X5675's 6 months ago for $70, and now I'm going to upgrade to 24GB RAM for another $40 or so. So you're talking about an entire system cost that overall outperforms JUST the cost of a new CPU. Although really excited for Ryzen 3000-series if I'm being honest.

 

It seems silly to even bother overclocking when these things already perform so well as a dual CPU setup in a system like this. Just my two cents, though...

[Zando_]

1 minute ago, bmichaels556 said:

I just feel like randomly butting in here... Why the hell are you guys buying $100+ dollar motherboards and overclocking!? It significantly kills any price/performance benefits of using X58. 

 

Right now, I'm running dual X5675's in a Dell Precision T7500. Got it for $140. Came with L-series Xeons, so no good for my uses. Got two X5675's 6 months ago for $70, and now I'm going to upgrade to 24GB RAM for another $40 or so. So you're talking about an entire system cost that overall outperforms JUST the cost of a new CPU. Although really excited for Ryzen 3000-series if I'm being honest.

 

It seems silly to even bother overclocking when these things already perform so well as a dual CPU setup in a system like this. Just my two cents, though...

Yep, they're great in dual CPU boards, but lots of us are either chasing the highest overclock possible for fun, or looking for the best gaming performance possible. And a $100 mobo (assuming you shop around) + $30 6c/12t that rivals a Ryzen 5 1600 (when you OC the Xeon to 4.5Ghz or so, usually doable on most chips) is still cheaper than said R5 1600 + mobo + DDR4 which is still a lot more expensive than DDR3. Especially if you don't care about RAM speed, you can grab ECC server RAM for not much money at all. 

[bmichaels556]

7 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

Yep, they're great in dual CPU boards, but lots of us are either chasing the highest overclock possible for fun, or looking for the best gaming performance possible. And a $100 mobo (assuming you shop around) + $30 6c/12t that rivals a Ryzen 5 1600 (when you OC the Xeon to 4.5Ghz or so, usually doable on most chips) is still cheaper than said R5 1600 + mobo + DDR4 which is still a lot more expensive than DDR3. Especially if you don't care about RAM speed, you can grab ECC server RAM for not much money at all. 

Gotcha. Yeah, I can definitely see the hobbyist aspect of it, trying to push it to absolute maximum. How high has someone been able to go on this thing with your typical liquid cooling setup? Biggest drawback is crazy power draw. Might need a damn electrical line just for that rig lol.  

 

Then again, I have seen Tech YES City's results when comparing to a newer CPU. In games that are CPU bound, you take quite a hit. I think about a 33%+ bottleneck?

 

Actually... Anyone tried disabling some cores, turning off hyperthreading, things like that? I think he ran it at full 6/12 at like 4.5Ghz? I would think using 6 full cores as opposed to 6 "halved cores" would increase performance a good amount in single core..? I think I might mess with this tonight. 

[Zando_]

7 minutes ago, bmichaels556 said:

Gotcha. Yeah, I can definitely see the hobbyist aspect of it, trying to push it to absolute maximum. How high has someone been able to go on this thing with your typical liquid cooling setup? Biggest drawback is crazy power draw. Might need a damn electrical line just for that rig lol.  

 

Then again, I have seen Tech YES City's results when comparing to a newer CPU. In games that are CPU bound, you take quite a hit. I think about a 33%+ bottleneck?

 

Actually... Anyone tried disabling some cores, turning off hyperthreading, things like that? I think he ran it at full 6/12 at like 4.5Ghz? I would think using 6 full cores as opposed to 6 "halved cores" would increase performance a good amount in single core..? I think I might mess with this tonight. 

Try it for sure! And I think one of the bois here pushed to 6.83GHz or something but he was using dry ice, wouldn't be sustainable for actual use. I'm pretty sure guys have gotten to/over 5Ghz on water though. 

[Ground]

8 minutes ago, bmichaels556 said:

Gotcha. Yeah, I can definitely see the hobbyist aspect of it, trying to push it to absolute maximum. How high has someone been able to go on this thing with your typical liquid cooling setup? Biggest drawback is crazy power draw. Might need a damn electrical line just for that rig lol.  

 

Then again, I have seen Tech YES City's results when comparing to a newer CPU. In games that are CPU bound, you take quite a hit. I think about a 33%+ bottleneck?

 

Actually... Anyone tried disabling some cores, turning off hyperthreading, things like that? I think he ran it at full 6/12 at like 4.5Ghz? I would think using 6 full cores as opposed to 6 "halved cores" would increase performance a good amount in single core..? I think I might mess with this tonight. 

Its a very little increase in performance (maybe 3% or so), but you can run cooler and maybe run a little less voltage. 

 

As for actual (non-dailyable frequencies) I've reached >5.8 GHz on Dry Ice and had some CPUs at 5.5 on air (way different setup though, the CPUs on Dry Ice could've more likely ran stuff there unlike the high clocked air ones), but pretty sure there are very few CPUs capable of daily 4.7 at non-degrading voltages.

 

I also wouldn't recommend spending 100+$ on a board if its for a daily anymore, I would put the limit at about 60€ by now if its for a daily (there are a couple boards I would pay over 100€ for, but thats for benching only).

 

I got a pair of slightly damaged Gigabyte x58 boards (UD3R and UD7) that I'm hopeful in fixing soon. Wish me luck there

[NoxiousOdor]

I was going to buy x58 to save money. Then I got sucked into it a little and bought an SR-2 and an overpriced pair of 5690s

[bmichaels556]

15 minutes ago, Ground said:

Its a very little increase in performance (maybe 3% or so), but you can run cooler and maybe run a little less voltage. 

 

As for actual (non-dailyable frequencies) I've reached >5.8 GHz on Dry Ice and had some CPUs at 5.5 on air (way different setup though, the CPUs on Dry Ice could've more likely ran stuff there unlike the high clocked air ones), but pretty sure there are very few CPUs capable of daily 4.7 at non-degrading voltages.

 

I also wouldn't recommend spending 100+$ on a board if its for a daily anymore, I would put the limit at about 60€ by now if its for a daily (there are a couple boards I would pay over 100€ for, but thats for benching only).

 

I got a pair of slightly damaged Gigabyte x58 boards (UD3R and UD7) that I'm hopeful in fixing soon. Wish me luck there

Oh man, that's actually really funny that you mention the performance increase is only a few %. Just confirmed that with cinebench lmao. 

 

Literally 100 on single core, up to 104 tops. No point.  

 

That's pretty crazy. These old things always impress me. They're so cheap it's like we're practically stealing them! So are they still the price/performance king? When will the following gen Xeons (what, Sandy Bridge?) start plummeting in price? Another couple CPU generations maybe? 

[bmichaels556]

Just now, WhisperingKnickers said:

I was going to buy x58 to save money. Then I got sucked into it a little and bought an SR-2 and an overpriced pair of 5690s

See I feel like if you're overclocking, the 5690 is going to be a huge waste, considering the only 10% increase from something like 5675's. 

 

But then, if you're using a server board and can't overclock, I can definitely see the appeal of X5690's. I was considering them, but at 100% load, the Precision T7500 isn't super great at cooling my dual X5675's, so I wouldn't want to totally overwhelm it. They don't throttle or anything, but it just irks me to run these things over 80c. 

[Zando_]

2 minutes ago, WhisperingKnickers said:

I was going to buy x58 to save money. Then I got sucked into it a little and bought an SR-2 and an overpriced pair of 5690s

OC those puppies and you'll still beat my $320 or so 2700X and $270+ CH7 in multicore though, so you're not that far off in terms of value. Plus even though the Crosshair is fricken awesome it can't equal the legendary status of the totally ridiculously cool SR-2 so you've got that going for you too. 

[NoxiousOdor]

Just now, bmichaels556 said:

See I feel like if you're overclocking, the 5690 is going to be a huge waste, considering the only 10% increase from something like 5675's. 

 

But then, if you're using a server board and can't overclock, I can definitely see the appeal of X5690's. I was considering them, but at 100% load, the Precision T7500 isn't super great at cooling my dual X5675's, so I wouldn't want to totally overwhelm it. They don't throttle or anything, but it just irks me to run these things over 80c. 

I originally bought the pair of 5690s when I was using a dual socket server board (and therefore couldn't OC) but then I ended up buying the SR-2 which is still a dual socket board but I can OC both sockets. 

[NoxiousOdor]

1 minute ago, Zando Bob said:

OC those puppies and you'll still beat my $320 or so 2700X and $270+ CH7 in multicore though, so you're not that far off in terms of value. Plus even though the Crosshair is fricken awesome it can't equal the legendary status of the totally ridiculously cool SR-2 so you've got that going for you too. 

I keep meaning to overclock, I really do want to rebeat your cinebench score but I am always tired when I get home and I often find myself in more of a mood to play games rather than stare at my awful blue bios screen

[Zando_]

Just now, WhisperingKnickers said:

I keep meaning to overclock, I really do want to rebeat your cinebench score but I am always tired when I get home and I often find myself in more of a mood to play games rather than stare at my awful blue bios screen

I feel ya. And that's the worst thing about old BIOS', the blue background just shreds your eyes, at night after working in front of a screen all day it's absolute murder. 

[bmichaels556]

27 minutes ago, WhisperingKnickers said:

I originally bought the pair of 5690s when I was using a dual socket server board (and therefore couldn't OC) but then I ended up buying the SR-2 which is still a dual socket board but I can OC both sockets. 

You happen to have a Kill-A-Watt or similar device? Just curious how much more power dual X5690's use compared to dual X5675's. 

[Slayer3032]

31 minutes ago, bmichaels556 said:

Oh man, that's actually really funny that you mention the performance increase is only a few %. Just confirmed that with cinebench lmao. 

 

Literally 100 on single core, up to 104 tops. No point.  

 

That's pretty crazy. These old things always impress me. They're so cheap it's like we're practically stealing them! So are they still the price/performance king? When will the following gen Xeons (what, Sandy Bridge?) start plummeting in price? Another couple CPU generations maybe? 

I tried 4.6ghz with HT vs 4.8 without HT, my Cinebench went up from 142cb to a whole whopping 144cb in the single thread test.

 

X79 stuff is already pretty cheap and the ability to dump massive amounts of used DDR3 into it is pretty appealing. As far as non-overclocked performance goes Ivy Bridge Xeons can be really attractive with the power efficiency and core count increases. Sometimes you can find a good deal on X99 too but with Zen 2 around the corner, it's going to make most of this hardware massively overpriced and not worth it when new is realistically not that much more expensive.

 

Otherwise for budget gaming finding the cheapest i7 pre-built and stuffing a $100~ GTX970  is about the best you can possibly do. I've seen i7-4770 prebuilts with 8gb of ram go for like $140 before.

[NoxiousOdor]

15 minutes ago, bmichaels556 said:

You happen to have a Kill-A-Watt or similar device? Just curious how much more power dual X5690's use compared to dual X5675's. 

No I don't sorry. All I know about the power is that the tdp is considerably higher at 130w per 5690

[Zando_]

2 hours ago, WhisperingKnickers said:

No I don't sorry. All I know about the power is that the tdp is considerably higher at 130w per 5690

Get your hands on a Corsair HXi/RMi/AXi PSU, those bois can report the power to each component IIRC.

[Crunchy Dragon]

1 hour ago, Zando Bob said:

Get your hands on a Corsair HXi/RMi/AXi PSU, those bois can report the power to each component IIRC.

That sounds about right.

 

HXi units are some of my favorites, dat 80+ Platinum rating at a decent price...

[bimmerman]

On ‎12‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 1:50 PM, bmichaels556 said:

I just feel like randomly butting in here... Why the hell are you guys buying $100+ dollar motherboards and overclocking!? It significantly kills any price/performance benefits of using X58. 

 

Right now, I'm running dual X5675's in a Dell Precision T7500. Got it for $140. Came with L-series Xeons, so no good for my uses. Got two X5675's 6 months ago for $70, and now I'm going to upgrade to 24GB RAM for another $40 or so. So you're talking about an entire system cost that overall outperforms JUST the cost of a new CPU. Although really excited for Ryzen 3000-series if I'm being honest.

 

It seems silly to even bother overclocking when these things already perform so well as a dual CPU setup in a system like this. Just my two cents, though...

just to give a counterpoint, I don't think I'm the only one here who bought in to X58 when it was the new shiny. It's super easy to justify spending ~$300 or so on a new AIO, ebay chip, more ram, and some fast SSDs to modernize an aging system, when the alternative is spend ~2x for similar performance in a new platform. I think amortizing the cost of the system+(many)upgrades since new, I'm in for maybe $350 per year?

 

I'll also go on record saying the OC'd Xeon performs like a completely different computer from a non-OC'd i7-950, or even the OC'd 950 I once had. Significantly better performance to where it was well worth the few hours tinkering with figuring out a stable OC. (subjectively speaking, that is)

[Guest]

On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 7:23 PM, bimmerman said:

Although really excited for Ryzen 3000-series if I'm being honest.

50% on the 1600x was it now? compared against a x5650... I'm just hoping my xeon will carry atleast for 4 more years... which should reach it without any trouble.. 

(This statement should be addressed or linked to @bmichaels556 ofcourse)

 

On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 7:23 PM, bimmerman said:

I'll also go on record saying the OC'd Xeon performs like a completely different computer from a non-OC'd i7-950, or even the OC'd 950 I once had. Significantly better performance to where it was well worth the few hours tinkering with figuring out a stable OC. (subjectively speaking, that is)

The only real unbiased proof I have of my x5650 capabilities is being atleast on par in performance running ME andromeda a 920 on 4 ghz 

Still a modern system with atleast the same cores will give you a lot of more capabilities, especially with the pcie and ram developments, not to mention l2 l3 cache ….etc etc 

Here's mine btw, nicely tucked away behind a air cooler that also covers the memory ( 3x4, 3x2 ) ssd, sata memreader, dvd player and a msi gaming-x 1060 3 gb ( should have let the lights on ) as you can see, setup with nothing serious in mind  

( just looked at the pic and noticed that the xonar ain't installed at this point and all in all its very a blurry picture )