# So is a 7 year old X58 system obsolete. Lets get some numbers and see.



## Tomgang (Mar 12, 2016)

Many of you whit an old system are properly wondering just as i have my self. How far behind are my system compared whit much newer system and shut i upgrade or get a new system for gaming, video editing and so on.

So to help answer that i have benched my old system over the past year and tried different benchmark where my old system is overclokket to compensate for its age as much as possible. In most of the benches my CPU run between 4 and 4,3 GHz and my two GTX 970 also godt a nice oc on them. please be aware of that some bench are done on Windows 7 before i moved to Windows 10 Pro.

My old rig config:
I7 920 @ 4-4,3 GHz air cooled and runs 4 GHz for 24/7 use (at 4,3 GHz the cpu runs to hot som i only use it for bench but those with water cooling shut cut run a chip like mine at 4,3 Ghz or more have sen a few doing 4,5-4,6 GHz on water).
Asus Rampage 2 extreme ROG motherboard
1 PCI sata 3 and USB 3.0 controller.
12 GB DDR3 1600 MHz triple channel memory.
Zotac GTX 970 in SLI whit modified bios for higher power target (from 106 % to 119 % and helped alot to get some nice oc on cards there is based on reference desing).
SSD: Crucial M4 64 GB for OS and a Samsung EVO 250 GB for most used games.
HDD: 1 x WD 1TB caviar black, 1 x WD RED 2 TB and 2 x WD velociraptor 150 GB 10000 RPM i raid 0 for older games.
Windows 10 Pro 64 bits

So here are some numbers from my old rig over the past year. Lets start with Unigine Heaven Benchmark.

GPU´s at stock in sli on windows 7 so after going to windows 10 score may differ today. CPU runs 4 GHz at this test.






After some oc on the cards





For a comparison here are a 3Dmark Firestrike score on my rig with two GTX 660 TI sli before i moved on to GTX 970 SLI.






Moving on to 3Dmark firestrike single card run.






SLI run. CPU at 4 GHz and GPU´s OC lower but not by that much for 24/7 use, my system gets around 15500.





Extreme score.





Ultra score.






So are an old rig like mine VR ready. The answer is yes. Please note SteamVR performence test does not support SLI (at least not when i dit the test so the score are only whit one card. If SLI support the test would properly have been even better).






And as the last bench i have used CPU-z bench. whit the cpu at stock, 4 GHz and at 4,35 GHz.

Stock.






4 GHz





4,35 GHz





So now i just hope others with older systems can help them deside what to do. Also i would like if others with much newer systems will join in with some benchmarks for comparison so help people se if they shut upgrade or get a complete new system. all machines are welcome to show. But i would prefer intel machines whit 2, 4 or 6 cores since this is the most commen to day and AMD CPU´s from 2 to 8 cores.

And else what you guys think. Is the Old X58 obsolete?

Besides this X58 users also have the option and get a I7/Xeon 6 core CPU also.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 12, 2016)

Good stats Dude.

From one proud X58 owner to another......


----------



## Frenzic (Mar 12, 2016)

Nope, X58 is not obsolete, i am sure you will get a few more good solid years out of it


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 12, 2016)

I am not upgrading till my system dies.


----------



## Tomgang (Mar 12, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Good stats Dude.
> 
> From one proud X58 owner to another......



Yeah det old X58 systems are still taking there turn even today, 7 years after i came out.



Frenzic said:


> Nope, X58 is not obsolete, i am sure you will get a few more good solid years out of it



I agreed. 1 or maybe 2 years i think is not impossible on less my CPU/mohterboard dies off cause. The GPU´s have pletty of power for 1920x1200 resolution gamming and the cpu handeling them great. Only in GTA V i have seen the CPU being limited factor but i may be caused of all the mods i have installed in the game.



CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> I am not upgrading till my system dies.
> 
> View attachment 72802
> 
> ...



Oh nice CPU and to get to see that a nice xeon can run on my motherboard also. Maybe a xeon is the next upgrade for me


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 12, 2016)

Tomgang said:


> Oh nice CPU and to get to see that a nice xeon can run on my motherboard also. Maybe a xeon is the next upgrade for me




X5650 is the sweet spot.......


----------



## jaggerwild (Mar 12, 2016)

stock CPU

http://hwbot.org/submission/3155180_

 Extreme

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/11192191

 I don't have a X79 board right now....


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 12, 2016)

Thats a system that is far from a write off ( got 2  x  1366 on the go both with Xeon X5650 installed )
as caps said x5650 is the sweet spot with a good overclock and 6 ht cores )


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 12, 2016)

My brother still games with a i7 990x and a GTX 980.  It does fine.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 12, 2016)

I just rebuilt someone's x58 rig at work. Even at stock the 920 still chugs along without issues in any of today's applications


----------



## Tomgang (Mar 12, 2016)

jaggerwild said:


> stock CPU
> 
> http://hwbot.org/submission/3155180_
> 
> ...



Wow is my system realy not longer behind your system. Pretty sweet.



dorsetknob said:


> Thats a system that is far from a write off ( got 2  x  1366 on the go both with Xeon X5650 installed )
> as caps said x5650 is the sweet spot with a good overclock and 6 ht cores )



When there is only one way to go for my next update. Get a 6 core xeon.



R-T-B said:


> My brother still games with a i7 990x and a GTX 980.  It does fine.



Agreed had just played some the witcher 3 wild hunt and the old junk maxes it out. X58 is still go for gaming.



cdawall said:


> I just rebuilt someone's x58 rig at work. Even at stock the 920 still chugs along without issues in any of today's applications



In most things a stock I7 920 are still great, but when it comes to gaming im glad i have oc the old chip.
But no matter what I7 920 does a pretty good job taken its age in for a counter.


----------



## LightningJR (Mar 12, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> X5650 is the sweet spot.......



Yes do this if you can find one for a good price. Your CPU will be the bottleneck in some games but the system is very nice as it is even if it's old.


----------



## Tomgang (Mar 13, 2016)

So i just tried Unigine Heaven Benchmark on my windows 10 install for those wo where curies to se the difference between win 7 and win 10 run.

In this test the CPU run at 4,35 GHz and GFX base 1292 MHz/boost 1432 MHz (max boost hit 1508 MHz)/Mem 7632 MHz. As you can se there are not that big a difference in score even whit the CPU oc from 4 GHz in win 7 to 4,35 GHz in Win 10.
So it looks like the most limited factor for this benchmark is stil the GPU´s even whit this old CPU.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Mar 13, 2016)

Still rocking my 920 / X58 setup too, zero issues.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 13, 2016)

benchmarks are not a very good indicator.. my system shows 12% cpu use running valley.. not much above idle..

3dmark is a little different because it has an optimized  multi threaded cpu only test in with the overall score.. it paints a false picture because games are not multi thread optimized..

but the gpu is king.. any old half decent cpu will do.. 

if i deliberative run a very low resolution the cpu will do more work but at normal gaming resolutions the gpu is king.. quite why some folks think otherwise always has puzzled me.. 






trog


----------



## Luke (Mar 13, 2016)

Still running 1366 in both my main desktops. i7 970 Hex core in my main PC at home and the 950 in my LAN PC. Also my main VMWare server runs a pair of 1366 Xeons. 7 years old and still going strong. Scary as i have not logged in here for a long time and my system specs are still mostly valid.


----------



## Tomgang (Mar 13, 2016)

Fluffmeister said:


> Still rocking my 920 / X58 setup too, zero issues.



Long live the X58 



trog100 said:


> benchmarks are not a very good indicator.. my system shows 12% cpu use running valley.. not much above idle..
> 
> 3dmark is a little different because it has an optimized  multi threaded cpu only test in with the overall score.. it paints a false picture because games are not multi thread optimized..
> 
> ...



You are right, this benchmark is not that CPU intensive. I just testet it. But no problem feating my 2 GPU´s. CPU runs 4 GHz and GPU base 1292 MHz and boost up to 1500 MHz and memory runs 7632 MHz at this test.









Luke said:


> Still running 1366 in both my main desktops. i7 970 Hex core in my main PC at home and the 950 in my LAN PC. Also my main VMWare server runs a pair of 1366 Xeons. 7 years old and still going strong. Scary as i have not logged in here for a long time and my system specs are still mostly valid.



Wow you got some X58 systems .


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 13, 2016)

@Tomgang 

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/xeon-owners-club.211143/


----------



## Tomgang (Mar 14, 2016)

I got improved my score for valley benchmark by clokking the grafik more and let the CPU run 4,3 GHz this time.


----------



## vega22 (Mar 14, 2016)

oc q9550+970 score 8 on that steam vrtest.

but both x48 and x58 shit the bed when it comes to games with many texture calls.

so do z68 and 77 vs skylake and pcie ssd....






image stolen from a friend


----------



## Fouquin (Mar 14, 2016)

Everyone hates the phrase "future proof" but it's hard to look at the X58 platform, and in extension Nehalem / Westmere, and not agree that it was and is the most future proof platform Intel has made. X79 is going to surpass it in performance/dollar in the used markets here pretty quick (and if you get lucky on a decent board + Xeon 1600 series it already does) however X58 still does basically all the same tricks despite its age. It's a platform that in 2-3 years when we approach a decade since its release it will still be in use due to its stability and performance.

In an extension of that I feel X99 is a true successor to X58. Like X58, it has brought a new generation of features and technologies into a very well deployed and unified platform, and I see it lasting 5-8 years in many enthusiast's rigs.

Keep rocking X58 you diehards.


----------



## Moofachuka (Mar 14, 2016)

Still rocking my i7 980 & 7970 xfire and I can't be happier.  My avg frames is 71.4fps.  Still not too shabby for a 4 years old PC haha!


----------



## Tomgang (Mar 16, 2016)

Alright this time it is Cinebench R15 turn to let the I7 920 shine or maybe say time to get a new CPU. You decide?
About the score: 624 is with the CPU running 4 GHz and 666 (yeah i know this cpu has a "devil inside" get it?) score the CPU runs 4,3 GHz


----------



## Easy Rhino (Mar 16, 2016)

look at my system specs. both systems are rock solid. this thread actually confirms for me that buying a 970 would not be a mistake given the age of the x58 chipset.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 16, 2016)

Obsolete, No... puts a glass ceiling on FPS in some games (for a couple of reasons)... absolutely.



Tomgang said:


> About the score: 624 is with the CPU running 4 GHz and 666 (yeah i know this cpu has a "devil inside" get it?) score the CPU runs 4,3 GHz


And a stock 6700K hits a bit over 1000. That is 50% faster with less clockspeed.

If time is money, I would surely upgrade. If you don't care, well... then there isn't a point to upgrade.


----------



## Tomgang (Mar 16, 2016)

Easy Rhino said:


> look at my system specs. both systems are rock solid. this thread actually confirms for me that buying a 970 would not be a mistake given the age of the x58 chipset.



Sure whit a I7 980x you will have no problem whit one GTX 970 card. My old junk have no trouble feeding one card. You will be just fine.



EarthDog said:


> Obsolete, No... puts a glass ceiling on FPS in some games (for a couple of reasons)... absolutely.
> 
> And a stock 6700K hits a bit over 1000. That is 50% faster with less clockspeed.
> 
> If time is money, I would surely upgrade. If you don't care, well... then there isn't a point to upgrade.




Are you sure about that? The score of over 1000 is a stock cpu link please.
Cause those scores i have seen the cpu hits around 822 to 888 stock and at 4,8 GHz it hits 1040.




























Besides that i am i no plan of upgrade right now. I only game on this machine any way and if i would upgrade i would just get a cheat ass X58 6 core I7/Xeon chip or if new go X99 whit Broadwell E when it comes out.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 16, 2016)

My fault... that was 4.7GHz... 931 is what I have scored at stock speeds... Still 50% more (my review ->): http://www.overclockers.com/asus-maximus-viii-extreme-motherboard-review/

So yes, my point still stands... if you work with all the cores and value your time, you should upgrade.



Tomgang said:


> ure whit a I7 980x you will have no problem whit one GTX 970 card. My old junk have no trouble feeding one card. You will be just fine.


Regardless if you add more cores, it can put a glass ceiling on performance.  Adding more cores shows up in some benchmarks (particularly the 3DMark ones from 06 to now) have a CPU test which scales with cores. If you notice, your GPU score doesn't move much at all, however that CPU score goes up and so does the FINAL score.


----------



## Tomgang (Mar 16, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> My fault... that was 4.7GHz... 931 is what I have scored at stock speeds... Still 50% more (my review ->): http://www.overclockers.com/asus-maximus-viii-extreme-motherboard-review/
> 
> So yes, my point still stands... if you work with all the cores and value your time, you should upgrade.
> 
> Regardless if you add more cores, it can put a glass ceiling on performance.  Adding more cores shows up in some benchmarks (particularly the 3DMark ones from 06 to now) have a CPU test which scales with cores. If you notice, your GPU score doesn't move much at all, however that CPU score goes up and so does the FINAL score.



Alright, but this old X58 rig is plenty fast for my use.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 16, 2016)

Tomgang said:


> Alright, but this old X58 rig is plenty fast for my use.


LOL, You don't need to justify your personal uses for it and defend the thing... but, you did ask the question in this thread/what this thread is about. Just because I bunked a reason or two doesn't mean it isn't still good for people. Your point was to get the facts out and let people decide.... I added some facts.

For a fact that platform and all its CPUs:

1. Put a glass ceiling on some games (for a couple of reasons)
2. Are not close to the same IPC of the newer chips. Buying a newer chip can save one A LOT of time productivity wise (as I linked, 50%+ in rendering with LESS clockspeed - overclock the 6700K to where I was at, and your X58 chips are about at a limit at 4-4.3Ghz, well, you see the picture the results painted.


----------



## Tomgang (Mar 16, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> LOL, You don't need to justify your personal uses for it and defend the thing... but, you did ask the question in this thread/what this thread is about. Just because I bunked a reason or two doesn't mean it isn't still good for people. Your point was to get the facts out and let people decide.... I added some facts.
> 
> For a fact that platform and all its CPUs:
> 
> ...



Alright i get your point. I agreed if you exsample video converting you would want a new CPU but when properly at 6 or 8 core cpu any way.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 16, 2016)

Id be happy to post up some Cinebench results at 4Ghz with my 5820K. Its just going to show A LOT more difference for strikingly similar costs to a 6700K.


----------



## Tomgang (Mar 16, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Id be happy to post up some Cinebench results at 4Ghz with my 5820K. Its just going to show A LOT more difference for strikingly similar costs to a 6700K.



Please post bench. X58 Also have 6 core option so it is fair to do so. Gamers property wants i7 6700k White video coverters would want your cpu.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 16, 2016)

This is what a Xeon X5650 will do at 4ghz   (6c/12t)








and X5670 at 4.0   (6c/12t)


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 16, 2016)

Sorry about the double post but i found a score i had for Xeon E5620 at nearly 4.0  (4 cores 8 threads @ 3.95ghz)


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 16, 2016)

Matches what the Skylake Quad does for all intents and purposes...except with 50% less cores/threads and an arse load more power. That (was) a $1000 processor too. I would hate to see that up against the 5820K for the same price as a 6700K (CPU pricing). 




Tomgang said:


> Please post bench. X58 Also have 6 core option so it is fair to do so. Gamers property wants i7 6700k White video coverters would want your cpu.


I will tonight.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 16, 2016)

The X5670 i am using now is at 2.2 ghz for everyday use and my rig is using 142 W as we speak.

I am streaming a TV prog but my gpu load (GTX 680) is negligible. (about 20w).

So she is pretty thirsty even on minimum clocks.

It boosts to 4.6 for gaming and iirc this increases CPU watts by 50/60w.


@EarthDog please promise not to tell anyone........ but i paid 55 quid for the X5670


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 16, 2016)

Its a 95W processor at its stock speeds (2.93GHz - why are you underclocking?). 4.6Ghz all cores, you are sniffing 150W+ depending on the sample/voltage


----------



## SystemViper (Mar 16, 2016)

I am thinking of selling my Gig X58A-OC and X5650 and i just was playing around with it and hit over 4ghz...
I think i will try for 5ghz, that would be the BOMB....

*4185.63 MHz* (23 * 181.98 MHz) - Uncore: 3639.7 MHz



CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> please promise not to tell anyone........ but i paid 55 quid for the X5670


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 16, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Its a 95W processor at its stock speeds (2.93GHz - why are you underclocking?). 4.6Ghz all cores, you are sniffing 150W+ depending on the sample/voltage




I find its is a nice balance for what i do. I am not wasting electricity unnesssarily. I cant work so even a little bit of saving helps.  I will run GTA V and check my watt meter.


I also love it because it looks like this


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 16, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> I find its is a nice balance for what i do. I am not wasting electricity unnesssarily. I cant work so even a little bit of saving helps.  I will run GTA V and check my watt meter.
> 
> 
> I also love it because it looks like this


You also have two ram sticks in a triple channel platform and they are in the wrong spots in the first place. Your manual states two sticks should be in A1 and B1 (first two blue slots going L to R) and not A2/A1. I believe you are running in SINGLE channel there. 

See your manual for details: https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/RAMPAGE_II_EXTREME/HelpDesk_Manual/


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 16, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> You also have two ram sticks in a triple channel platform and they are in the wrong spots in the first place. Your manual states two sticks should be in A1 and B1 (first two blue slots going L to R) and not A2/A1. I believe you are running in SINGLE channel there.
> 
> See your manual for details: https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/RAMPAGE_II_EXTREME/HelpDesk_Manual/




Correct they run in single channel, i never noticed any difference whether i have run ram in single, dual or triple.

I sold my 3rd stick ( 8gb) the other day.. in the hope that i can buy 12gb  ( 6 x 2gb) Corsair triple channel and fill all the slots like i used to.


----------



## johnspack (Mar 16, 2016)

Yep,  thank god x58 still has some life in it.  My hex core runs my 970 just fine.  Still waiting to find an affordable sb-e or newer hex or octa system,  so this will just have to do!


----------



## SystemViper (Mar 16, 2016)

I built a system for a friend using the
Rampage ii Extreme and a ES version of the 970 (i think) and he is still rocking it today, he loves it.
He just keep upgrading the video card and about 3 months ago I told him to start using SSD's and we put in some
so he is rocking and rolling with his.... Rampage ii Extreme, i'll see if i can find a few pics, I did a real good job with the
wire management and set up since it was for a good friend.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 16, 2016)

@EarthDog

i ran GTA V @4.6 to get some wattage figures.

@ 4.6 idle everything.... 150w
@4.6 GTAV 100%GPU... 390w

max tdp on GTX 680 is 175w

so  390w - 175w 

= 215w for the board, CPU, pump and fans .


I think you are pretty much spot on with 150-160 for the chip when its under a good load

Project Cars which is less CPU intensive uses 40w less on my system with the GPU at 100%.

There is no o/c on my GPU.


----------



## chuck216 (Mar 16, 2016)

LOL You do realize that pairing dual 970's with any CPU even a 15 year old pentium 3 would result in 60+ FPS in most games. That's not truly a 7 year old system ... now pair the 920  up with a GTX 295 or Radeon 9550 then you have a 7 year old system.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 17, 2016)

chuck216 said:


> LOL You do realize that pairing dual 970's with any CPU even a 15 year old pentium 3 would result in 60+ FPS in most games. That's not truly a 7 year old system ... now pair the 920  up with a GTX 295 or Radeon 9550 then you have a 7 year old system.


not with a 15 year old cpu. First, that is not even pcie, but agp so it's not even possible. Second, multi GPUs need a fair amount of horsepower to not be limited. Something a 15 year old cpu can't remotely handle.

Good try though.


----------



## RealNeil (Mar 17, 2016)

i7-4770K, 16GB DDR3-2400 MHz. RAM, two GXT-980 6GB

I don't think that Cinebench uses both GPUs when it runs. My scores are about the same with just one installed.


----------



## johnspack (Mar 17, 2016)

My benchies are all over the forum,  so don't really want to bother,  but I feel no pressing need to upgrade my hex core x58 system to run 1080p at 60hz.  A newer system would do squat.
It's pain that a hex tends to run a bit hotter than a quad,  so I sit at 4-4.1ghz on my cpu,  although it's stable at 4.5.  Only way I'd need sb-e or above is for sli 980tis and 1440 or above and 
120hz or above ect.  Every game I throw at it runs at 60fps or higher at max settings,  and I can run multiple vms without issue.  And render video,  or transcode like a madman!
I'll squeeze another year out of this probably.....


----------



## Naito (Mar 17, 2016)

Nehalem and Westmere are both obsolete. While they perform admirably, their IPC gap is increasing. DDR3 support can be shakey (Nehalem from experience). Chipset features are stale.


----------



## johnspack (Mar 17, 2016)

Bah,  my 1866 ram runs fine,  and it's easy to add usb3 and sata3 support if you need it.  My gaming install boots in  less than 15 secs,  and that's on my ancient sata2.  I added a usb3 card  for flash drives ect,  works fine.
And again,  I get 60fps in modern games at max settings....  and I can store a lot of games right now!  Storage drives still only need sata2.  But not sure how I can boot my os faster using sata3....  15secs,  do I care?


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 17, 2016)

Naito said:


> Nehalem and Westmere are both obsolete. While they perform admirably, their IPC gap is increasing. DDR3 support can be shakey (Nehalem from experience). Chipset features are stale.



I'm not really sure you are using the term "obsolete" properly.  They are still perfectly usable, as demonstrated.  No, I would not do a new build with one, but that's a given.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 17, 2016)

I am helping a friend build a X58 system as we speak.

He paid £ 8.00 for a 4c/8th  cpu that will o/c to 4.1 ghz.........

Plenty good enough for his needs (and his pocket)


----------



## Naito (Mar 17, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> I'm not really sure you are using the term "obsolete" properly.


 It is correct in this context. Nehalem came out late 2008 out, that is old in the world of technology. When these come across the bench at work, they're straight into the bin. So many benefits can be had, if you have the need/resources to upgrade.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 17, 2016)

Naito said:


> It is correct in this context. Nehalem came out late 2008 out, that is old in the world of technology. When these come across the bench at work, they're straight into the bin. So many benefits can be had, if you have the need/resources to upgrade.




Throw them in my bin please.


----------



## chuck216 (Mar 17, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> not with a 15 year old cpu. First, that is not even pcie, but agp so it's not even possible. Second, multi GPUs need a fair amount of horsepower to not be limited. Something a 15 year old cpu can't remotely handle.
> 
> Good try though.



OK I went back too far .. but how about a 12 year old Pentium IV... those  motherboards were pcie  but you get my general point, pair that strong a GPU setup with any amount of processing power and it will still get playable framerates


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 17, 2016)

Any isn't 15 or 12 year old processors. ANd what knuckle head would get 2 high end cards and pair it with an old slow arse system that places a low glass ceiling on things? that makes no sense, which makes the hypothetical even more ridiculous.


----------



## chuck216 (Mar 17, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Any isn't 15 or 12 year old processors. ANd what knuckle head would get 2 high end cards and pair it with an old slow arse system that places a low glass ceiling on things? that makes no sense, which makes the hypothetical even more ridiculous.


I never said it was practical... just possible.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 17, 2016)

Oh... my fault... 

To me, you sure as hell inferred practicality with your original post.


----------



## chuck216 (Mar 17, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Oh... my fault...
> 
> To me, you sure as hell inferred practicality with your original post.



no it was meant as an observation of just how powerful "modern" Graphics card setups can be, where they can overcome even the most severe of CPU bottlenecks


----------



## cdawall (Mar 17, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Matches what the Skylake Quad does for all intents and purposes...except with 50% less cores/threads and an arse load more power. That (was) a $1000 processor too. I would hate to see that up against the 5820K for the same price as a 6700K (CPU pricing).
> 
> 
> I will tonight.









This is at 4.58ghz (127*36)


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 17, 2016)

Nice! Sorry I didn't get to it last night, but I though someone(you?) posted up the 4Ghz results.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 17, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Nice! Sorry I didn't get to it last night, but I though someone(you?) posted up the 4Ghz results.



Someone posted some 4770K results lol. I mean it even gets beaten by AMD


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 17, 2016)

It sure better with 12c/t versus 4c/8t!!!!


----------



## cdawall (Mar 17, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> It sure better with 12c/t versus 4c/8t!!!!



24 c/t There are 2 of those cpus haha


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 17, 2016)

LOL AMD.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 17, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> LOL AMD.



It's quite fast don't doubt it


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 18, 2016)

Naito said:


> It is correct in this context. Nehalem came out late 2008 out, that is old in the world of technology. When these come across the bench at work, they're straight into the bin. So many benefits can be had, if you have the need/resources to upgrade.



You're literally throwing money away then.  Some westmere cores fetch a pretty penny.

BTW, I upgraded from a 990x last year.  I felt about nothing.


----------



## Naito (Mar 18, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> You're literally throwing money away then. Some westmere cores fetch a pretty penny.



That's what the company does. Costs too much to support them in the field. Costs too much to get someone to test them, clean them, refurbish them. Some of the lesser spec Westmeres have the dodgy rev. B2 chipset. Clients want more USB 3.0, SATA 6.0, better power efficiency, etc.



R-T-B said:


> BTW, I upgraded from a 990x last year. I felt about nothing.



Depends what you're looking for, I guess. For me, the feature set of the newer platforms is almost enough to warrant an upgrade.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 18, 2016)

> That's what the company does. Costs too much to support them in the field. Costs too much to get someone to test them, clean them, refurbish them. Some of the lesser spec Westmeres have the dodgy rev. B2 chipset. Clients want more USB 3.0, SATA 6.0, better power efficiency, etc.



I suppose, but I'd be slipping any 990x's into my pocket if you see them.  They still net half a grand on ebay...  too much to clean?  I think not.


----------



## Naito (Mar 18, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> I suppose, but I'd be slipping any 990x's into my pocket if you see them. They still net half a grand on ebay... too much to clean? I think not.



I'm not paid to do it. I've barely got time to allocate to the throwing of them into the skip. Too busy coding.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 18, 2016)

You must make more money coding than me.


----------



## Naito (Mar 18, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> You must make more money coding than me.



Probs not. Small team, big project.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 18, 2016)

Naito said:


> Probs not. Small team, big project.




Do you need someone to "sort" your rubbish skip?

I  will do it for minimum wage if i can fill my pockets.....


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 18, 2016)

Naito said:


> That's what the company does. Costs too much to support them in the field. Costs too much to get someone to test them, clean them, refurbish them. Some of the lesser spec Westmeres have the dodgy rev. B2 chipset. Clients want more USB 3.0, SATA 6.0, better power efficiency, etc.



" I'll take them untested unrefurbished unsupported ect " so will @CAPSLOCKSTUCK  rather than you landfill them


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 18, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> " I'll take them untested unrefurbished unsupported ect " so will @CAPSLOCKSTUCK  rather than you landfill them





Woah woah woah



I asked first.....


PS......my 2 P would love 24 threads rather than 16 (as would BOINC)........seriously dont chuck them out, we can help cure cancer with these.


----------



## SystemViper (Mar 18, 2016)

time to start a new business.......







Yea the X58 debate is so tough, i have a  Gig X58A-oc and one day I want to sell it and the next i
look at the board and it's so sweet, i just want to keep it with the x5650 i have. So for now i am
going to see if i could get 5ghz out of the chip..... and just see where it goes from there.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 18, 2016)

Good luck on 5Ghz... I hope you have some Dry Ice around to get there!


----------



## cdawall (Mar 18, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Good luck on 5Ghz... I hope you have some Dry Ice around to get there!



Or a really strong ss


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 18, 2016)

Exactly... it won't be done on ambient cooling... well maybe a single core CPUz grab...


----------



## damric (Mar 19, 2016)

New Skylake i3 for comparison:








 

Single thread ^^


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 19, 2016)

Naito said:


> Probs not. Small team, big project.



Sounds like similar situations...  We just have hardware disagreements but otherwise are pretty alike.


----------



## Hokum (Mar 22, 2016)

My X58A-OC is currently rocking a X5550, running at 4Ghz, and I picked up a X5660 for £30 yesterday for some 6 core fun. Runs any game I throw at it and the GTX 770 at over 60fps at 1080p.


----------



## silentbogo (Mar 22, 2016)

SystemViper said:


> time to start a new business.......
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Easy. On air:

http://hwbot.org/submission/3043343_silentbogo_cpu_frequency_xeon_x5650_5071_mhz

Got stable 4.7GHz with 6c/12t, but temps were a bit too high...

Also my old Rampage II GENE can handle my G.Skill Ripjaws almost as high as 2000MHz!


----------



## SystemViper (Mar 22, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Or a really strong ss



I have a very sweet SS, need to dust it off, but i think i am going to start playing again.
I think it's time..... I look forward to seeing your pots back in action. hope you can make the PA overclocking festival

I'll be bringing the Orange (x58a-0c) plus a 775 mobo Gig UD3p that eats up quads and a Asus Maximux V Extreme plus a few more items.
Depending on when we get serious and start talking bout our goals and what we should bring and leave home.
I am looking forward to learning a lot but also just meeting all the people i have talked to for years,,, 
it's going to be great.

I am also hoping that a few loudmouths show up, I would love to see them Face to Face, 

BAM ! here comes some gold cups... 

See you all there.


----------



## SystemViper (Mar 22, 2016)

silentbogo said:


> Easy. On air:
> 
> http://hwbot.org/submission/3043343_silentbogo_cpu_frequency_xeon_x5650_5071_mhz
> 
> ...



That is a sweet Rampage II GENE, i built a system for a friend over 5 years ago with that board and a ES X5670, I know that soon I will be
getting it back with he upgrades,,,,

Those are some nice scores, and on air to boot, very sweet - 220 Bclock that is nice, you got a good one there.

thanks for the post.


----------



## SystemViper (Mar 22, 2016)

Hokum said:


> My X58A-OC is currently rocking a X5550, running at 4Ghz, and I picked up a X5660 for £30 yesterday for some 6 core fun. Runs any game I throw at it and the GTX 770 at over 60fps at 1080p.



that is a great price for the X5650, you will love the chip.... But I WANT MORE,,, I AM LOOKING FOR SOMETHING A BIT HIGHER IN THE GHZ DEPARTMENT. oh yes i am yelling


----------



## silentbogo (Mar 22, 2016)

SystemViper said:


> that is a great price for the X5650, you will love the chip.... But I WANT MORE,,, I AM LOOKING FOR SOMETHING A BIT HIGHER IN THE GHZ DEPARTMENT. oh yes i am yelling


Like this one? 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-Xeon-...6544fd3&pid=100011&rk=1&rkt=2&sd=171658144633


----------



## SystemViper (Mar 22, 2016)

no more like this one......

*Intel Xeon X5690 6-Core 3.46GHz 12M 6.40GT/s CPU (SLBVX)*

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-Xeon-...855432?hash=item1c6386af88:g:MHoAAOSwHxVW7GU5

*or maybe this because it's a lot cheaper.,...*
Up for sale is a single X5680 processor, It is the 2nd best 6 core processor available for LGA1366 equivalent to an i7-980X, 

So i can rock 5ghz on water...


----------



## SystemViper (Mar 22, 2016)

whats the difference between a

*Intel Xeon W3680 3.33GHz 12MB 6-Core and a 
Intel Xeon X5680 3.33GHz ??????????

besides the price?
*


----------



## silentbogo (Mar 22, 2016)

SystemViper said:


> whats the difference between a
> 
> *Intel Xeon W3680 3.33GHz 12MB 6-Core and a
> Intel Xeon X5680 3.33GHz ??????????
> ...


QPI links + the amount of supported RAM.

W3680 is a workstation CPU (1 processor only, 24GB DDR3 max), while X5680 can work in dual-socket systems and have a shitton of RAM.


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 22, 2016)

also
Physical Address Extensions 36-bit    W3680 max mem 24 gig
Physical Address Extensions 40-bit    X5680  max mem 288 gig


----------



## BigPaPaRu (Mar 22, 2016)

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/7966021


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 22, 2016)

I'll bite... why did you post a 3DM11 score with a 4790K in a thread talking about X58?


----------



## vega22 (Mar 22, 2016)

i would guess to show the 25% improvement made in ipc from x58 to x87 gen chips.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 22, 2016)

vega22 said:


> i would guess to show the 25% improvement made in ipc from x58 to x87 gen chips.


Good thinking... 

where is the baseline to compare with the same GPU?


----------



## SystemViper (Mar 22, 2016)

I;ll have to look and find that gpu with a good overclocked x58 to see the 25% improvement.

and i wonder how that translates to real world usage, you get 107 fps vs 85? on a 60hz monitor


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 22, 2016)

Also, IIRC, 25% improvement was from Sandybridge to Skylake. This is X58 to Haswell... I am thinking its more than that. 

Also, since its a modern benchmark, the results are skewed considering the CPU test in these go towards the total score. That same bump doens't translate to games...

Useless post is useless.


----------



## silentbogo (Mar 22, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Also, IIRC, 25% improvement was from Sandybridge to Skylake. This is X58 to Haswell... I am thinking its more than that.



Well, since this 3DMark score is already posted, might as well use it for a bit of tricky and speculative math:

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/10459828

My X5650 @3.6GHz pulls an "overwhelming" 9291pts physics score, while his 4790K @ 4.6GHz does 12600pts.
If I overclock my CPU to 4.6GHz (which in my case is doable, but never tested in 3DMark 11), I should get a 27-something'ish % boost which _in theory_ will translate into 11900pts score.
So, a quad-core Haswell vs hexa-core Westmere gives us somewhere around 25% improvement on per-core basis at the same frequency.

What's really impressive, is that single-core performance improvement is apparent even in the cheapest low-end Haswell CPUs.
Even my recently purchased Celeron G1840 (it was ~$25 used) is near 10% faster in single-core tasks than my X5650 at the same clocks.


----------



## SystemViper (Mar 22, 2016)

silentbogo said:


> Well, since this 3DMark score is already posted, might as well use it for a bit of tricky and speculative math:
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/10459828
> 
> ...



thanks for breaking that down, i am very interested in this conversation...

Very Interesting


----------



## BigPaPaRu (Mar 22, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> I'll bite... why did you post a 3DM11 score with a 4790K in a thread talking about X58?


Me?

I thought OP asked for results from newer systems to compare with his older system, so that was all I had avail and posted it.


----------



## jaggerwild (Mar 22, 2016)

There is a similar thread to this one at Anand, wonder if its the same poster. Yeah that's why I posted my 6700K score cause OP asked for anyone to post so as to compare


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 22, 2016)

I missed that.. completely my bad.


----------



## BigPaPaRu (Mar 22, 2016)

I gotta admit, OP, You have some pretty rad scores. Wouldn't have expected that from 3+ year old rig. Here I am, thinking about upgrading to 6700K or 5630K, When my 4790K is just fine. Thank you for this post. I like to have the newest tech, but that would just be foolish to upgrade.


----------



## Schmuckley (Mar 23, 2016)

I'm not liking the newer stuff.
Thinking of going back to 1366 or maybe x79.


----------



## vega22 (Mar 23, 2016)

i was just guessing tbh 

i thought sandy was about +15% and ivy very little then hw another +10% or so. 

skylake being another jump in the same +10/15% region.


----------



## Tomgang (Apr 1, 2016)

Sorry i have been away, but the last two weeks has been not so funny to say atleast. First my granma passed away and last week i got a flu. But im back now.



BigPaPaRu said:


> I gotta admit, OP, You have some pretty rad scores. Wouldn't have expected that from 3+ year old rig. Here I am, thinking about upgrading to 6700K or 5630K, When my 4790K is just fine. Thank you for this post. I like to have the newest tech, but that would just be foolish to upgrade.



Yearh upgrade from a I7 4790K  would be a big whaste of money. you would be better of just overclock the sucker you have now.

And i have 2 new benches.

First super Pi mod.







Tried out Monster hunter online benchmark also.

Single card run.






Two cards run.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 2, 2016)

For reference, my stock 6700k..http://www.overclockers.com/asus-maximus-viii-extreme-motherboard-review/


----------



## Tomgang (Apr 2, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> For reference, my stock 6700k..http://www.overclockers.com/asus-maximus-viii-extreme-motherboard-review/



I7 6700K is faster and i would not have it be any way else. After 7 years it would be pretty sad if there not are a different at all. So will i get a I7 6700K?
No it is faster but the price tag is also up in the sky and i can not get my self to upgrade from one quad-core to another quad-core. I want more cores than that and lower clock speed on cpu whit more cores, you can always clock the cpu any way.
So if or when i upgrade i would go X99/broadwell E and get a 6 or 8 core chip or wait until 2017 for a new socket the socket after LGA 2011-V3. I think that would be a good time to upgrade then. New socket and a new generation of chips at the same time mostly means the biggest performence gain.

But thanks for your input. And overclokket I7 6700K is non the less an impressive Quad-core. But it is still only a quad-core. 10 years after the first quad-core came out quad beside dual-cores is still the most used CPU type even to day. I would not have exspected that ten year after. Already back in 2011 i whas considering to get a i7 970 but dropped it. Today i would at least get at hexa core and even better an octa core.


----------



## trog100 (Apr 2, 2016)

ten years ago the first quad cores were a waste of space.. three (slower) cores sat there doing nothing.. its taken a long time for the software to catch up with the hardware.. in fact most of it still hasnt fully caught up with quad core even yet.. 

benchmarks paint a rosie picture but its a false one..  it always has been.. 

trog


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 3, 2016)

Tomgang said:


> I7 6700K is faster and i would not have it be any way else. After 7 years it would be pretty sad if there not are a different at all. So will i get a I7 6700K?
> No it is faster but the price tag is also up in the sky and i can not get my self to upgrade from one quad-core to another quad-core. I want more cores than that and lower clock speed on cpu whit more cores, you can always clock the cpu any way.
> So if or when i upgrade i would go X99/broadwell E and get a 6 or 8 core chip or wait until 2017 for a new socket the socket after LGA 2011-V3. I think that would be a good time to upgrade then. New socket and a new generation of chips at the same time mostly means the biggest performence gain.
> 
> But thanks for your input. And overclokket I7 6700K is non the less an impressive Quad-core. But it is still only a quad-core. 10 years after the first quad-core came out quad beside dual-cores is still the most used CPU type even to day. I would not have exspected that ten year after. Already back in 2011 i whas considering to get a i7 970 but dropped it. Today i would at least get at hexa core and even better an octa core.


choice is yours of course... but, what's the point of buying more cores when you don't use them? Though the premium isn't that much, it's still a premium and for little to no reason. A quad with HT will be a fine CPU for years to come.

The real gains are in IPC which skylake SMOKES nehelam AND has faster clock speeds both stock and overclocked.

X58 is certainly a viable platform, but there isn't a doubt it's long in the tooth and puts a glass ceiling on some games and setups.

Don't forget, the i7 920s MSRP was 285. MSRP for 6700k is $350. Really, that isn't a huge difference...especially considering it's been 8 years and looking at the MSRP for previous gens...2600K was $316....4770K was $350 MSRP...so is the price really out of line??? Seems that's normal to me. 



trog100 said:


> benchmarks paint a rosie picture but its a false one.. it always has been


depends totally on the benchmark.. some are useless in that rspect, others just show the truth.... always has been. You just have to know which benchmarks are good for what and how to read them. 

Blanket statements FTL.


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 3, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Don't forget, the i7 920s MSRP was 285. MSRP for 6700k is $350. Really, that isn't a huge difference...especially considering it's been 8 years and looking at the MSRP for previous gens...2600K was $316....4770K was $350 MSRP...so is the price really out of line??? Seems that's normal to me.



Except the i7 920 was the low-end enthusiast chip of the time.  You'd be better off comparing it to a 5820k, rather than a 6700k.


----------



## trog100 (Apr 3, 2016)

"depends totally on the benchmark.. some are useless in that rspect, others just show the truth.... always has been. You just have to know which benchmarks are good for what and how to read them. 

Blanket statements FTL."

###

you have to be an expert to do this.. most folks aint and benchmarks (and review sites) power the entire "enthusiast" scene..

but higher benchmarks scores do motivate places like this.. they motivate me even though i know its all bollocks.. he he

the psychology of an "enthusiast" aint quite the same as that of a sane individual..

is five year old technology good enough in the real world.. yes it is.. its only in the benchmark world that it aint.. 

trog


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 3, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> Except the i7 920 was the low-end enthusiast chip of the time.  You'd be better off comparing it to a 5820k, rather than a 6700k.


good call, and no problem. The price is the same or $10/20 different.. It doesn't change anything really. 



trog100 said:


> "depends totally on the benchmark.. some are useless in that rspect, others just show the truth.... always has been. You just have to know which benchmarks are good for what and how to read them.
> 
> Blanket statements FTL."
> 
> ...


jesus trog, you can't even quote people right, lol!

Expert? Hardly. Just need to know what matters. Plenty of non experts can figure that out.

Again, not all bolloks, I explained why. Most, or at least MORE people here are enthusiasts. We are not talking about the majority of tbe populous that would be fine with a NUC.


----------



## trog100 (Apr 3, 2016)

"Again, not all bolloks, I explained why. Most, or at least MORE people here are enthusiasts. We are not talking about the majority of tbe populous that would be fine with a NUC."

which does kind of bring us back to the thread topic.. 

even the "enthusiasts" on here  differ somewhat.. the ones that have just bought the "latest and greatest" who try and justify doing it.. the ones that bought the latest and greatest a while back and try and justify keeping it.. and at the bottom of the chain the ones that cant afford the latest and greatest but still lust after it.. 

i recon the all in one machines (my son just bought one for the family and kids) will becomes mass market devices they make a lot of sense..

its easy to move back a few years in cpu time just nip in the bios and lower a few settings.. i do this from time to time just to see if i can spot any "real world" difference.. so far i cant  which brings us back to the all important benchmark thing.. 

there is one simple sanity test.. how many times per day does a person run a benchmark.. "normal" users never run them at all.. he he

trog


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Apr 3, 2016)

trog100 said:


> even the "enthusiasts" on here differ somewhat.. the ones that have just bought the "latest and greatest" who try and justify doing it.. the ones that bought the latest and greatest a while back and try and justify keeping it.. and at the bottom of the chain the ones that cant afford the latest and greatest but still lust after it..



i dont  fall into any of those categories.

You should add another one.

"smug Xeon owner who bought a $ 1440 chip for $ 90"

http://ark.intel.com/products/47920/Intel-Xeon-Processor-X5670-12M-Cache-2_93-GHz-6_40-GTs-Intel-QPI


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 3, 2016)

trog100 said:


> ones that cant afford the latest and greatest but still lust after it..


=ME


----------



## SystemViper (Apr 3, 2016)

trog100 said:


> and at the bottom of the chain the ones that cant afford the latest and greatest but still lust after it..



I just love hardware, but i have to agree that the software is just starting to really push i7's, so anything over 6 cores is for very specific jobs. But you got
to love them... For the longest time you could get away with a highly overclocked i3 and a good video card and you would rock just about every game.
Not true anymore but from what i have read that most games are just pushing the limits of the i7 and a select few use up to 6 core's. But anything over that
as far as gaming goes is not used.

What a crazy ride, software was the limiting factor for the longest time and Intel took advantage of our LUST for newer, faster and more cores with
their Tick / Tock mentality with small incremental increases and limited full blown unlocked chips for a premium. It just crazy that the X58 is still a
banging core for a nice gaming system so many years later....  I think the GPU chip makers are starting to do the same thing more toooo and just give us a little more each time
with each one just a little different, OC, SSC, Turbo, Ultimate Extreme, Lightning, Classified, military grade, unlocked voltage, LN2 setting and on and on......
then adding different memory amounts too, so many choices and so little difference when you really come down to it...

The basic formula of chip/board selection plus target output (1080p, 144, 120, G-sync) will give you the range for your optimal card but with so many choices
it just gets very confuzing, then you add in the bling/ego factor then oh should i make it future proof too.

ARRRRGGGGGGGGGGGG


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 3, 2016)

People are Realizing intels strategy and the graphics makers
and are no longer so keen to be sucker bit in the up grade race
Hardware Sales have Slumped as people ( and Corporate ) Realize there is little % gain to upgrading
Even the Microsuck arm twist upgrade to 10 in collaboration is causing sales to slump
Semi serious rant over ( or is it )


----------



## trog100 (Apr 4, 2016)

owning a 4790K plus two 980 tI cards i 100 % disagree that modern games are pushing any half decent cpu..

my chip is at 4.6 gig.. i can and have (just to see) slowed it down to not much over 3 gig.. my gaming performance is still perfectly okay.. my cpu isnt working that hard with any current game.. tis pretty much all down to the gpu.. or in my case the two of them..

the bottom line is simple.. a better gpu provides noticeably better gaming performance.. a better cpu might turn 140 fps into 150 fps but for sure no bugger will notice that.. 

trog


----------



## SystemViper (Apr 4, 2016)

there is no doubt that the greatest factor in gaming is the GPU, i think that is pretty much undisputed


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 4, 2016)

SystemViper said:


> there is no doubt that the greatest factor in gaming is the GPU, i think that is pretty much undisputed



Unless you are playing some hardcore strategy game with huge map sizes and long AI threads, pretty much true.


----------



## SystemViper (Apr 4, 2016)

I just downloaded World of warships, don't know if it's hardcore but it looked like fun.....


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 4, 2016)

SystemViper said:


> I just downloaded World of warships, don't know if it's hardcore but it looked like fun.....



I didn't mean hardcore in any sense other than "will rape your CPU."  Few games actually manage this, but I have seen a few.


----------



## hat (Apr 4, 2016)

Talking solely CPU side, I think x58 is still a good performer, but today's offerings will definitely surpass it not only in performance (where applicable, not so much gaming) but also in efficiency. Then there's the newer features like M.2 ports and whatnot.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 4, 2016)

trog100 said:


> owning a 4790K plus two 980 tI cards i 100 % disagree that modern games are pushing any half decent cpu..
> 
> my chip is at 4.6 gig.. i can and have (just to see) slowed it down to not much over 3 gig.. my gaming performance is still perfectly okay.. my cpu isnt working that hard with any current game.. tis pretty much all down to the gpu.. or in my case the two of them..
> 
> ...


While for the most part, that is right, there are some games that show scaling well over the CPUs (talking Intel here) clock speed. Be it from IPC or more cores, there are a few modern titles that push halfway decent CPUs. More so on current AMD CPUs. 

With multiple GPUs, where the user doesn't neuter his own cards (read you trog), the more CPU you have the more FPS you tend to get in many titles. SO with multiple GPUs, its a glass ceiling. 

You also have to consider, not everyone owns a top end CPU. The G3258 and i3's in several titles, show FPS improvements as clockspeeds go up. 

So if you don't have two high end GPUs, and are sitting with much lower frame rates, it can make a difference in some titles. 

I suggest looking at techspot.com and looking at the game reviews, the CPU benchmarks. Again, for the most part that is right, but to 100% disagree with it, is wrong.


----------



## vega22 (Apr 4, 2016)

games that love ipc = 95%
games that love cores= 5%

in another decade we will laugh at the idea of gaming on a fast dual, today it is still as viable as it a decade ago....

dx 10 was meant to change that, so was 11...maybe 12 really will but i think the transition to 64bit for the consoles will really be what makes this next gen of games shine. not being limited to the constraints 32bit places is what is really going to let games kick on.

now to come back to something like the topic?

x58 is still a good cpu today for many tasks, maybe future games will make it even better for gaming. but as others have said the advances which have been made outside the cpu are what give more modern platforms the edge for anybody gaming today. skull trail too...


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 4, 2016)

I am splitting hairs, I know, but it is nowhere near as viable as it was 10 years ago. Today, there are some games (2?) that just won't work with a dual core, period. Other games, albeit not many, suffer greatly performance wise with only two cores. 10 years ago, there were zero issues like this. As time goes on, more games will suffer with a dual core.


----------



## Tomgang (Apr 4, 2016)

Alright this is properly the last benchmarks i will be posting now. I think i have posted an amount of benchmark now that can tell the performence of X58 system. So the last two is Wprime and hwbot prime.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 4, 2016)

See my previous link (post 117) for 4.2GHz 6700K and WPrime. 

32M = 4.965
1024M = 151.458

That was at 4.218GHz, FYI.


----------



## trog100 (Apr 4, 2016)

if anyone is sitting on an I3 and their frame rates are too low they need a better  gpu.. a better gpu will most likely make their games playable.. a faster cpu on its own will not.. it might show a small improvement but not enough to matter.. 

trog


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 4, 2016)

Nobody said on its own... just that your statement, being so absolute while there are so many exceptions, needed adjusted.

You got hung up on the i3/dual core thing when I was really focused on FPS improvements from a CPU. Sure, a GPU matters more, however, there are still gains to be had, particularly with multiple GPUs as well as with AMD processors... intel shows some improvements as well. As I said, go look at techspot reviews and see.  

EDIT: Well, you dont have to adjust it... being your opinion and all, but, its wrong as written.


----------



## trog100 (Apr 4, 2016)

i could change "i 100% disagree" to "i strongly disagree" 

not quite so "absolute" that one.. 

i aint sure that an I3 comes under my definition of a "half decent cpu" but i doubt there are many games that would not play okay with an I3 and a 980 ti however ill matched the combination is.. 

trog


----------



## Ithanul (Apr 4, 2016)

Fouquin said:


> Everyone hates the phrase "future proof" but it's hard to look at the X58 platform, and in extension Nehalem / Westmere, and not agree that it was and is the most future proof platform Intel has made. X79 is going to surpass it in performance/dollar in the used markets here pretty quick (and if you get lucky on a decent board + Xeon 1600 series it already does) however X58 still does basically all the same tricks despite its age. It's a platform that in 2-3 years when we approach a decade since its release it will still be in use due to its stability and performance.
> 
> In an extension of that I feel X99 is a true successor to X58. Like X58, it has brought a new generation of features and technologies into a very well deployed and unified platform, and I see it lasting 5-8 years in many enthusiast's rigs.
> 
> Keep rocking X58 you diehards.


Indeed, I see so many still rocking a X58.  Darn, solid CPUs and boards.

Though, I'm giddy that I manage to nab a 3930K with RIVBE with RAM off a dude for 350.  Best darn deal I ever got on some hardware.


----------



## Fouquin (Apr 5, 2016)

Ithanul said:


> Indeed, I see so many still rocking a X58.  Darn, solid CPUs and boards.
> 
> Though, I'm giddy that I manage to nab a 3930K with RIVBE with RAM off a dude for 350.  Best darn deal I ever got on some hardware.



That is a hell of a deal. I myself am using an E5-1650 and P9X79 Deluxe that I got for $265 total. It's hard to find deals where I live, but sometimes you pay pennies for gold.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Apr 5, 2016)

Fouquin said:


> sometimes you pay pennies for gold.




exactly

E5620....4 cores 8 threads clocks to 4.0+ ghz


£12.00 delivered 

I bought 2 for my cruncher.........£ 16.00 for the pair, delivered, sold them and put 2 x E5640 in, they were £22.00 for the pair.


----------



## Melvis (Apr 18, 2016)

Here is a quick picture of my 1366 System I use for my business. Has the i7 970, 6GB RAM, and a GTX 750 GPU. The system I got really cheap for about $300   (Motherboard, RAM and i7 940 for $140) Bought the i7 970 for $120 and traded my i7 940 for it. GTX 750 1GB for $50. Motherboard is a GA-EX58-UD5 Tri SLi, Tri Crossfire.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 18, 2016)

Melvis said:


> Here is a quick picture of my 1366 System I use for my business. Has the i7 970, 6GB RAM, and a GTX 750 GPU. The system I got really cheap for about $300   (Motherboard, RAM and i7 940 for $140) Bought the i7 970 for $120 and traded my i7 940 for it. GTX 750 1GB for $50. Motherboard is a GA-EX58-UD5 Tri SLi, Tri Crossfire.



Very similar to the setup I just put together for someone at work.  I7 950@3.8, evga x58, 12gb of ram,  2x240gb ssds in raid 0 and a gtx680. It's a wee bit excessive for a Web browser but she complained about her 860 being slow and boss man said fix


----------



## Rincewind (Jun 29, 2016)

Let me also share my X58 related experience with you.

I am still rocking an now ancient i7 920 C0/C1 on a despicable Zotac X58-SLI-A-E motherboard (probably one of the weakest and most problematic X58 implementations - having no real OC capabilities and tons of issues with RAM, no Xeon support and with the latest BIOS unusable due to a bug that prevents saving settings to CMOS). Managed to have it accept 8GB in Dual Channel mode, using a Corsair Force GT 120 GB SSD for OS and a number of WD and Seagate spinning drives for storage, powered by a Corsair TX 850, cooled by a Scythe Katana, all within a Lian-Li B20 Silent aluminium case, with the bonus of still being able to use the excellent Audigy 2 ZS. With a 660Ti, I can still play most games on their higher / highest settings (1080) and operation is quite snappy for my needs. Sure, I don't edit 4k video, nor do I run 4k or 3D games, being on the conservative side or rather unimpressed by the contemporary wonders of technology.

Alas, after considering a jump to Haswell-E or Skylake, I ended up getting an incremental, but quite significant upgrade... on the same X58 platform. Managed to get an Asus RIII Formula, 12 GB CL7 1600 Mushkins, and X5680 CPU for the equivalent of $200. Since I'm a sucker for silent systems, went for Fractal Design R5 Titanium + Noctua D14, which should be future proof. Moving the power supply, graphics and audio cards, as well as SSD and faster, larger disks to the new build and replacing them with decent stuff I still have around the house to give it away as a working PC
.
Alas, while I don't believe hexacore makes much of a difference for most games, what people often fail to realize is that multitasking can be dramatically improved, especially by mapping certain tiers of processes to specific cores (those kind of processes which do not scale well or at all across more than two cores), while having four cores at all times for gaming or cpu hungry apps.

Really, except for the ludicrous burst speeds offered by more recent SATA III controllers, not to mention M2 / NVME and so on (which I don't care much about), I guess I'll also throw in an GTX 1070 when the price goes down for a promo and I expect to be safe for another two or three years.

I'm not saying that there has been no progress since X58, it would be stupid to say so. However, I didn't perceive it as huge as the figures would have you believe at work, where I do have new gen hardware and more resource-intensive stuff to do.

By the way, I fail to understand why someone would ever want to use two SSDs in RAID 0 outside benchmark territory. In real life, having your OS and apps on an SSD and the temp files/swap on another is overall far more efficient in a quite palpable manner. Even 3 SSDs - OS / Apps / Swap are a niftier setup, in my opinion.

So far, the best use I've had for a home desktop raid setup is the mirror setting, for backup and redundancy of the dearest data.


----------



## Naito (Jun 30, 2016)

These poor old workhorses really need to be put out to pasture...


----------



## Dbiggs9 (Jun 30, 2016)

Still running strong here


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 30, 2016)

Naito said:


> These poor old workhorses really need to be put out to pasture...



You kinda ignored the whole thread here showing the opposite.

My brother games on one of these with a GTX 980.  No bottleneck.


vega22 said:


> games that love ipc = 95%
> games that love cores= 5%



It's more like:



> games that love ipc = 2.5%
> games that love cores= 2.5%
> games that love GPU = 95%


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 30, 2016)

@NATO Not at all i built one last year for a friend's son for Xmas he is inseparable from it now especially with my old 7970 matrix in it, how quaint eh.
And another signed up to the master race muhahaha.


----------



## Naito (Jun 30, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> You kinda ignored the whole thread here showing the opposite.



The feature set on these things is long outdated and performance in key areas has fallen behind a bit. I think people just think of the 'incremental' upgrades between generations, but those small increases do add up - particularly when you're talking several generations. In the area of gaming, probably not. Are these things still decent value? Probably, but you can find cheap Sandy/Ivy Bridge chips around these days.

Not everyone can afford or needs the latest and the greatest, but more can be had for a similar price to this platform - better DDR3 support, native USB 3.0, PCIe 3.0, SATA 3.0 and so on. Anyone considering a cheap upgrade on a budget will be better off with something else.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 30, 2016)

Naito said:


> The feature set on these things is long outdated and performance in key areas has fallen behind a bit. I think people just think of the 'incremental' upgrades between generations, but those small increases do add up - particularly when you're talking several generations. In the area of gaming, probably not. Are these things still decent value? Probably, but you can find cheap Sandy/Ivy Bridge chips around these days.
> 
> Not everyone can afford or needs the latest and the greatest, but more can be had for a similar price to this platform - better DDR3 support, native USB 3.0, PCIe 3.0, SATA 3.0 and so on. Anyone considering a cheap upgrade on a budget will be better off with something else.



Your comment was not that better could be had (which is obvious) but more that if you already own one, it needs to be "put out to pasture."  That's what I found silly.



> The feature set on these things is long outdated and performance in key areas has fallen behind a bit.



Sounds kinda like AMD (whose IPC is still lower), and people still buy that for some reason...

Sorry, that was uncalled for.  I'm just grumpy today.


----------



## Dbiggs9 (Jun 30, 2016)

My next upgrade will be a 12 core Intel on 14nm.


----------



## Naito (Jun 30, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> Your comment was not that better could be had (which is obvious) but more that if you already own one, it needs to be "put out to pasture."



They'd be doing themselves a favour.  



R-T-B said:


> Sounds kinda like AMD (whose IPC is still lower), and people still buy that for some reason...



I'd say they're either very budget minded and still want to buy new or are fans that are willing to support AMD, regardless of their position. Would be nice to see AMD do well again with the Zen architecture. Even if Zen doesn't trade blows with some of the Intel heavyweights, but manages to provide excellent efficiency and performance at a decent price, I think they could be on to something.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 30, 2016)

Naito said:


> They'd be doing themselves a favour.



Depends on their usage and energy cost.  In many parts of the USA for gaming anyways, you'd be wasting money upgrading, honestly.


----------



## Naito (Jun 30, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> Depends on their usage and energy cost. In many parts of the USA for gaming anyways, you'd be wasting money upgrading, honestly.



That's true. As always, it's very much down to the individual and their circumstances. For example, my key points would be energy efficiency and, somewhat more importantly, feature set. I always found the DDR3 support a bit iffy and USB 3.0 controllers buggy (AsMedia, I believe) - this of course could have been a one-off case.


----------



## Moofachuka (Jun 30, 2016)

My Intel 980 is still running strong but I have to "upgrade" soon cuz I don't think there are lga 1366 mitx boards... Probably get 7700k next year cuz I mostly game.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jun 30, 2016)

My baby.

Entire thing cost £210 shipped. Board, CPU, cooler, GPU.
See rig specs & sig.

CSGO 195-455FPS
BF4 64 man Gulf of Oman, 45-80FPS ultra, medium 66-131FPS.

Image.








Video of BF4.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jun 30, 2016)

I built one for a friend earlier this year.

E5640
hd6970
8gb ram
MSI pro -e
ssd
hdd

worked out £225.00 all in

Every one is a winner.................


----------



## horik (Jun 30, 2016)

Will my CPU ( I7 950 ) bottleneck a GTX 1070?


----------



## Rincewind (Jun 30, 2016)

horik said:


> Will my CPU ( I7 950 ) bottleneck a GTX 1070?



It depends on how you see it. While it's likely the 1070 won't perform at its _absolute _best, with GTX 980 and 970 SLI setups running fine on X58, I doubt you'll be disappointed by its performance. It's what I'm planning to plant into my X58 once the prices go down a bit and manufacturers throw revised versions into the shelves.

However, you do seem to have a 970, so, on one hand, your current card likely performs better on Haswell-E at least, on the other, I don't really believe the upgrade will blow your mind, but rather smooth things out where they were a bit murky with your current card.

I'm not advocating for you switching platforms or anything, but I'd personally rather jump to something like Haswell Refresh (4790K with a more recent, good and fully featured mobo) before spending on the 1070. The only reason I'm considering 1070 first is that my current card is sensibly weaker than what you have -  a 660Ti, which shows its age a bit in Witcher 3, the new Doom and a few other select titles.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 30, 2016)

Naito said:


> These poor old workhorses really need to be put out to pasture...





dorsetknob said:


> " I'll take them untested unrefurbished unsupported ect " so will @CAPSLOCKSTUCK  rather than you landfill them



we still waiting for an answer 
We have dog Sanctuary's, cat Sanctuary's Donkey Sanctuary's and two Xeon/x58 Sanctuary's  one in wales @CAPSLOCKSTUCK   AND ONE IN DORSET @dorsetknob  we would home them fettle them and take good care of them in their old age


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 30, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> we would home them *fettle* them and take good care of them in their old age



Fettle them?  Is it just me or does that sound dirty?


----------



## Rincewind (Jun 30, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> Fettle them?  Is it just me or does that sound dirty?


Only for a dirty mind  It only means condition / to condition, but you can twist it to mean dirty stuff


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 30, 2016)

Rincewind said:


> Only for a dirty mind  It only means condition / to condition, but you can twist it to mean dirty stuff



Wow, it actually means something?  

Now I feel stupid.  Dirty mind though?  Don't test me bro.


----------



## Dethroy (Jun 30, 2016)

Honestly, I see absolutely zero point in upgrading my Xeon E3-1230v2 anytime soon.
But I plan on doing a mini-ITX build in the world's smallest case capable of housing high end GPUs - the DAN Cases A4-SFX (7.25L only) if anyone is interested. If there was a decent LGA 1155 mini-ITX board available, I wouldn't have to part with my beloved Xeon E3-1230v2. Unfortunately, every Skylake CPU, except the i7 6700K, seems to be no more than a sidegrade. Sadly, the i7 5820K's TDP is too high for such a project ...

If you guys don't intend to move to a smaller form factor or desperately need new features, then I see no reason why you should upgrade from those sexy X58 systems.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 30, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> Fettle them? Is it just me or does that sound dirty?


@R-T-B  learns a new word
and today's second word gurning









PS there is a World championship in Gurning


----------



## silentbogo (Jun 30, 2016)

Dethroy said:


> Honestly, I see absolutely zero point in upgrading my Xeon E3-1230v2 anytime soon.
> But I plan on doing a mini-ITX build in the world's smallest case capable of housing high end GPUs - the DAN Cases A4-SFX (7.25L only) if anyone is interested. If there was a decent LGA 1155 mini-ITX board available, I wouldn't have to part with my beloved Xeon E3-1230v2. Unfortunately, every Skylake CPU, except the i7 6700K, seems to be no more than a sidegrade. Sadly, the i7 5820K's TDP is too high for such a project ...
> 
> If you guys don't intend to move to a smaller form factor or desperately need new features, then I see no reason why you should upgrade from those sexy X58 systems.


There is a nice selection of Z77 ITX boards. I've personally handled a Z77E-ITX from AsRock and and equivalently decent Z77-ITX WiFi from Zotac. Both have a WiFi adapter included. The later one sells for as low as $60-70 (if you can find one, since most are still in use). If you truly want to build an ITX rig with the most compute power - you should consider something with much better airflow. My LianLi Q11B is almost twice the size of DAN, but it fails to be efficient at cooling even my tiny i3-6100. All hot air is blown through the PSU exhaust.

BTW, at one point when I still had my LGA1366 box HSF and an SFF version of MSI GTX750Ti - I did move my Rampage II GENE and X5650 inside a cheap, but functional and good looking SFF case.
Temps were OK, considering I only used it in this configuration for 2 months and never OCed the CPU over 3.6GHz. So, small form factor and x58 are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jun 30, 2016)

I actually want to down size my PC chassis, this Raven RV02-BW is gigantic...


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 30, 2016)

horik said:


> Will my CPU ( I7 950 ) bottleneck a GTX 1070?



If it's overclocked to at least 4 or 4.2 GHz, then I'd say no. Nehalems still have quite some grunt when overclocked.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 30, 2016)

horik said:


> Will my CPU ( I7 950 ) bottleneck a GTX 1070?


There will be a glass ceiling on some titles because of the cpu, yes. If you sli (not saying you are, more so responding to the guy that replied to you), there will surely be a limit as multi gpu setups scale with overclocking skylake so it will certainly be held back in some capacity with a 6+ year old cpu.


----------



## FireFox (Jun 30, 2016)

X58 systems are maybe out of date/ obsolete but with a decent Graphic card and some overclock you can play a few games, with a decent performance, of course this configuration would work better if you have a setup in single CPU, i have a dual CPU setup with 
2 x Xeon X5677 3.46GHz turbo boost 3.73GHz and an Asus 750Ti and i play Titanfall, call of Duty and a few more games without any issue.


----------



## Dethroy (Jun 30, 2016)

silentbogo said:


> There is a nice selection of Z77 ITX boards. I've personally handled a Z77E-ITX from AsRock and and equivalently decent Z77-ITX WiFi from Zotac. Both have a WiFi adapter included. The later one sells for as low as $60-70 (if you can find one, since most are still in use).


Alright, thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into those.


silentbogo said:


> If youtruly want to build an ITX rig with the most compute power - you should consider something with much better airflow. My LianLi Q11B is almost twice the size of DAN, but it fails to be efficient at cooling even my tiny i3-6100. All hot air is blown through the PSU exhaust.


From what I've read this seems to be a non-issue. This case even handles an i7 5820K when put under stress in Prime 95 (*proof*). So keeping an i7 6700K cold and quiet shouldn't be much of a problem. The GPU is even less of a concern


----------



## Mussels (Jun 30, 2016)

surprised to see this thread still going.

thought it was pretty clear these old CPU's still have plenty of balls, they're just hot, sweaty, power hungry balls.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jun 30, 2016)

I think this thread will be going for a good while.........just like my Xeons.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 30, 2016)

i just upgraded a friend from an i7 950 that i sold him last year, to my old i7 2600.

upto 30% better in synthetic benchmarks, zero difference in FPS games (some in CPU bound games like RTS games, or very single threaded games) - but about half the total system wattage, and a lot less heat/noise from his cooling.

i feel that intels really only been dropping the TDP lately, not upping the performance much.


----------



## El_Mayo (Jun 30, 2016)

I bought my Z97 build in 2014 full intending to be one of these guys. Probably won't get a new CPU until 2019!


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 30, 2016)

Mussels said:


> i just upgraded a friend from an i7 950 that i sold him last year, to my old i7 2600.
> 
> upto 30% better in synthetic benchmarks, zero difference in FPS games (some in CPU bound games like RTS games, or very single threaded games) - but about half the total system wattage, and a lot less heat/noise from his cooling.
> 
> i feel that intels really only been dropping the TDP lately, not upping the performance much.


you may want to look at some techspot game reviews and see. It isn't across all titles of course, but there are many that show a glass ceiling from such a processor. I have mentioned that at least once in this thread. 

Just a quick example: http://www.techspot.com/review/615-far-cry-3-performance/page6.html

You see the I7 920 has lost a bit of performance there. Mostly because of the clockspeed, but there is still IPC performance losses. This is a lot more pronounced in CPU limited games.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 30, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> you may want to look at some techspot game reviews and see. It isn't across all titles of course, but there are many that show a glass ceiling from such a processor. I have mentioned that at least once in this thread.
> 
> Just a quick example: http://www.techspot.com/review/615-far-cry-3-performance/page6.html
> 
> You see the I7 920 has lost a bit of performance there. Mostly because of the clockspeed, but there is still IPC performance losses. This is a lot more pronounced in CPU limited games.




i did mention no change in FPS games. Those are mostly GPU dependant these days, past a certain minimum threshold.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 30, 2016)

Im telling you there is in some FPS titles. The IPC difference between Nehalem and Skylake is on the order of 50%+. GPUs are twice as fast...

Look at the Battlefront results at techspot. There is a 4 FPS difference (4%) from a 2500K and i5 3470 (SB to IB, note). and the 2500K has a 100Mhz more clock. 

It isn't a huge deal (can be depending on title), but make no mistake about it, there is a glass ceiling on many titles, including FPS, from Nehalem based chips versus Haswell and Skylake at the same clockspeeds at 1080p.


----------



## Tomgang (Jun 30, 2016)

horik said:


> Will my CPU ( I7 950 ) bottleneck a GTX 1070?



If your CPU is clokket at 4 GHz+ You are good to go with one GTX 1070. But dont do SLI whit that CPU and two GTX 1070. When the CPU is a bottleneck.
My own I7 920 @ 4 GHz handels two 970 fine in all most every game. I hav tried 2-3 games where the CPU cut not keep gpu´s at 90+ % load  and that include GTA V with are known to be CPU intense.

But have tried the new Doom and that for exsample runs freaking great on my old ring.

Well get the CPU to 4 GHz and you are good for one GTX 1070, but two cards is not recomended.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 30, 2016)

i'm rather tired, so i'll leave it at half complete ponderings.

I ponder how much its related to the performance of the CPU, vs the improvements to the IMC/ram speeds (fallout 4 gets a lot faster with faster ram, for example) and PCI-E speeds.

someone get a skylake and compare with 1066MHz DDR3L at PCI-E 2.0 with their 1080


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 30, 2016)

The ram speeds have NOTHING to do with it outside of a rare few titles (FO4 being one exception - it sees improvements on skylake from clow DDR4 to fast). You can pick exceptions all day, but that isn't the rule/majority.

There are articles/reviews that show the difference between ram speed and its negligible as its always  been (again outside of a title or two or when using iGPU). You also know, as TPU did the testing, PCIe 2.0 16x is as fast as PCIe 3.0 8x... a 1% loss at most.

Really... Nehalem + modern high end GPU @ 1080p = glass ceiling. As I said before, it is still plenty serviceable, but there would be a difference, at the same clocks, between i7 920 at 4GHz and Skylake at 4Ghz/stock for many reasons, most of which being the CPU is too slow to push the GPUs at the 'low' res of 1080 with all the FPS the cards can push out.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 30, 2016)

Just remember IPC is very close between Nehalem and bulldozer... So anything limited by the fx series is limited by those i7's


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 30, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> The ram speeds have NOTHING to do with it outside of a rare few titles (FO4 being one exception - it sees improvements on skylake from clow DDR4 to fast). You can pick exceptions all day, but that isn't the rule/majority.
> 
> There are articles/reviews that show the difference between ram speed and its negligible as its always  been (again outside of a title or two or when using iGPU). You also know, as TPU did the testing, PCIe 2.0 16x is as fast as PCIe 3.0 8x... a 1% loss at most.
> 
> Really... Nehalem + modern high end GPU @ 1080p = glass ceiling. As I said before, it is still plenty serviceable, but there would be a difference, at the same clocks, between i7 920 at 4GHz and Skylake at 4Ghz/stock for many reasons, most of which being the CPU is too slow to push the GPUs at the 'low' res of 1080 with all the FPS the cards can push out.


And What...
So you can still game on one then just not with the highest settings in all games.
Saved from the bin then eh.
My Fx has the same ceiling I game fine thank you very much.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 1, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Just remember IPC is very close between Nehalem and bulldozer... So anything limited by the fx series is limited by those i7's




FX 8320 at 5ghz.







My CPU at 4.2ghz.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 1, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Just remember IPC is very close between Nehalem and bulldozer... So anything limited by the fx series is limited by those i7's



AMDs IPC on bulldozer is actually quite a bit worse...


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 1, 2016)

If i drop 50mhz on the CPU, this is what i get. I would say the Westmere XEON's are superior to Bloomfield chips as we have 32nm and more cache. Just wait until i get this under water, it's running under an ITX cooler right now.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 1, 2016)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> And What...
> So you can still game on one then just not with the highest settings in all games.
> Saved from the bin then eh.
> My Fx has the same ceiling I game fine thank you very much.


And nothing... cool your jets. 

Did you miss what I was saying... just in case: 


EarthDog said:


> *It isn't a huge deal* (can be depending on title), but make no mistake about it, there is a glass ceiling on many titles, including FPS, from Nehalem based chips versus Haswell and Skylake at the same clockspeeds at 1080p.





EarthDog said:


> As I said before, *it is still plenty serviceable*, but there would be a difference


----------



## cdawall (Jul 1, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> AMDs IPC on bulldozer is actually quite a bit worse...



It's pretty close and in multithreading shits all over it... Which means in games that use 4 threads it would typically perform better than the older Nehalem quad core parts.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 1, 2016)

cdawall said:


> It's pretty close and in multithreading shits all over it... Which means in games that use 4 threads it would typically perform better than the older Nehalem quad core parts.



multithreading has nothing to do with IPC.  If you really believe it's close in IPC, look at the example posted above.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 1, 2016)

cdawall said:


> It's pretty close and in multithreading shits all over it... Which means in games that use 4 threads it would typically perform better than the older Nehalem quad core parts.



You mean 8 threads.

And... a game that can use 8 threads.




















At least they tried.

Shadowplay with 970.










This is close to what my Phenom II did with GTX 580...











Only difference is the Phenom II is encoding the video, no Shadowplay here sonny jim, that beautiful Phenom II took a real pounding like a man.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 1, 2016)

Recon-UK said:


> You mean 8 threads.
> 
> And... a game that can use 8 threads.
> 
> ...



Two different gpus as well... Super good comparison...


----------



## RealNeil (Jul 2, 2016)

All in all, the only thing that matters is that your X58's performance is good enough for ~you~. (or your AMD box)

As Ricky Nelson sang, "You know you can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself"

I remember back in the day that I wanted an X58 system real bad. X58 was the shit.
But I couldn't afford it at the time, so I ended up with a Lynnfield i7-870 box instead.

I was happy with that except for the low number of PCI-E lanes it had. (one GPU ran fine though)
BTW: I still have that 870 and it still runs Linux wicked fast.


----------



## hat (Jul 2, 2016)

IMO, it's got plenty of grunt left in it, especially when overclocked. Yes, x58 is still a good performer, however, the efficiency is very bad.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 2, 2016)

Recon-UK said:


> If i drop 50mhz on the CPU, this is what i get. I would say the Westmere XEON's are superior to Bloomfield chips as we have 32nm and more cache. Just wait until i get this under water, it's running under an ITX cooler right now.
> 
> View attachment 75926



Just to remind everyone how much faster the current intel offerings are.






This was while chrome was running and steam was downloading a game. So hardly a benchmarking situation.


----------



## AsRock (Jul 2, 2016)

Rincewind said:


> Only for a dirty mind  It only means condition / to condition, but you can twist it to mean dirty stuff



Yup any thing can sound dirty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercourse,_Pennsylvania


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 2, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Just to remind everyone how much faster the current intel offerings are.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And just for kicks, here's a mainstream modern skylake chip:


----------



## Mussels (Jul 2, 2016)

3770k @ 4.2GHz (need thermal paste, can do 4.6 but had no saved benchies)


all these results really show is that thermals/efficiency got better, performance has been a slow increase along with clocks.


----------



## phill (Jul 2, 2016)

I'm a very proud owner of 3, important I feel X58 systems that still work and run like the first day they were released...

http://imgur.com/a/fHkko

I also have a Z77 + 2600k, a Z97 + 4770k and what I'm using currently a X99 + 5960x which was cherry picked..

One thing I notice between them all is the money I've spent on each of them.. 
The i7 920s I have ran at 4.5Ghz most of their lives when I was using them everyday and they've never missed a beat.. terrific systems!! 
The power in the 2600k and 4770k is noticeable in gaming benchmarks as well as the efficiency of the power draw from the socket, but I'm not bothered with that  
The 5960x was a stupid buy but I always said I'd upgrade from a quad core to a octo core and well that's what I did   it runs at 4.6Ghz at 1.16vcore for HWBot benchies and I've seen 4.8Ghz around 1.25vcore.. its a beast.. 

But X58... rock on!!  huge respect for.older hardware, heck, I still have my socket A rig here and even an Amiga 500 and 1200 if you wanna go back a bit further....


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 2, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Two different gpus as well... Super good comparison...



Yeah exactly, the 8350 should be winning, R9 290 vs GTX 670.
Never mind eh. 

For chit's n giggles...

http://www.overclock.net/t/1337699/sandy-bridge-vs-nehalem-vs-bulldozer-vs-piledriver-benchmarks

Enjoy


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 2, 2016)

Strong showing compared to amd... 7% on average behind 3820 in games from 2012 on earlier.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jul 2, 2016)

Recon-UK said:


> For chit's n giggles...
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1337699/sandy-bridge-vs-nehalem-vs-bulldozer-vs-piledriver-benchmarks
> 
> Enjoy


----------



## cdawall (Jul 2, 2016)

Recon-UK said:


> For chit's n giggles...
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1337699/sandy-bridge-vs-nehalem-vs-bulldozer-vs-piledriver-benchmarks
> 
> Enjoy



They were quite a bit closer in games than you would expect for $90 cpus


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 2, 2016)

cdawall said:


> They were quite a bit closer in games than you would expect for $90 cpus



They never were, honestly i have owned the Phenom II, i5 2500k and this XEON... this XEON put's my 2500K to shame in everything outside of pure gaming, and is outstanding for gaming too, i had GTX 480 SLi on the 2500K rig running at 5ghz.

FX is no better than Phenom II apart from when you clock it to around 4.5ghz, at 5ghz it barely matches a Bloomfield @ 4.0ghz, Bloomfield will easily go past 4.0ghz, FX 8350's will struggle to go past 4.6ghz for the most part, and require very high end motherboards to do so.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 2, 2016)

Recon-UK said:


> They never were, honestly i have owned the Phenom II, i5 2500k and this XEON... this XEON put's my 2500K to shame in everything outside of pure gaming, and is outstanding for gaming too, i had GTX 480 SLi on the 2500K rig running at 5ghz.
> 
> FX is no better than Phenom II apart from when you clock it to around 4.5ghz, at 5ghz it barely matches a Bloomfield @ 4.0ghz, Bloomfield will easily go past 4.0ghz, FX 8350's will struggle to go past 4.6ghz for the most part, and require very high end motherboards to do so.



The FX chips clock over 4.6 fine?

in other news these are two different versions of the game...so no surprise results are different. Notice how the menus aren't the same, god only knows which driver versions are being used as well. 






I have had pretty much every generation of chip between the Athlon 64 and current batch. People act as if the FX chips are the worst thing to be built, really they work fine for 99% of users...and I have no idea what overclocking issues you have I have yet to have an FX not hit 4.8-5. They are a glass ceiling just like X58 as has been said posting a million benchmarks showing how they are within a couple percent of all of the intel chips of old isn't going to change that...


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 2, 2016)

Without recording the Phenom II scores roughly the same as the FX in both video's... 

FX is much higher than mine as he uses ShadowPlay or a capture device.



















920 is only at 4ghz.

Very suitable epic music for Nehalem.










BEAST MODE


----------



## phill (Jul 2, 2016)

One thing I can say from my little experience is that my 920 @ 4.5Ghz I noticed not much of a step up in performance going to a stock 4770k.  Benchmark scores where around the same overall, the CPU scores obviously a bit different but there wasn't a gap that I was expecting at all..  I was a bit disappointed in a way that there wasn't a bigger gap at stock but I suppose overclocking made it better.  Aside from the power saving when you press the on button, I didn't really notice anything much different.  

Just as I've gone from the i7 920 @ 4.2Ghz to a 2600k @ 4.8Ghz to 4770k @ 4.8Ghz and at the moment my 5960X is at stock but I've not yet gamed with it..  I need to sit and set it up but I'm off to work in an hour so that's not gonna happen lol  Bar the 920 not having the same GPU installed, all the others I have and only really noticed the benchmark scores increasing not the FPS in games...  Maybe it might be different with a different GPU??  Who knows  

I was also told, if it's not broke, don't fix it


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 2, 2016)

From PCSX2 CPU benchmark.

84.33 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i7 4770K - 3.5 GHz Stock (Turbo Boost OFF) - Moosehunter
82.27 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 4670K - 3.4 GHz Stock (Turbo Boost OFF) - GranteedEV
82.05 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 650 - 4.6 GHz OC - Kyo3000 - CPU-Z
81.42 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i7 920 - 4.4 GHz OC - Unr3al
81.42 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i7 870 - 4.5 GHz OC - hallmark - CPU-Z
81.22 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 2500K - 4.0 GHz OC - Rezard
80.81 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i7 980X - 4.4 GHz OC - Hambone07si (non-member in this forum)
79.01 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i3 4130 - 3.4 GHz Stock (HT Off) - Serial Hacker
78.82 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 650 - 4.4 GHz OC - Kyo3000 - CPU-Z
78.43 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 2500K - 4.0 GHz OC - mike655
78.40 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 2500K - 4.0 GHz OC - cyber
77.86 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i7 870 - 4.2 GHz OC (HT off) - hallmark - CPU-Z
77.67 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i3 4130 - 3.4 GHz Stock (HT On) - Serial Hacker
77.67 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i7 920 - 4.2 GHz OC - Unr3al - CPU-Z
76.31 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD FX-6300 - 5.2 GHz OC (2 Modules) - ||dav1de|| - CPU-Z
75.29 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i7 920 - 4.0 GHz OC - Unr3al - CPU-Z
74.59 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 3570K - 3.4 GHz Stock (3.7 GHz w/TB) - Shadow Lady - CPU-Z
73.23 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 650 - 4.2 GHz OC - Kyo3000 - CPU-Z
72.80 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i7 920 - 4.0 GHz OC - gamerX1990 - CPU-Z
72.07 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD FX-8350 - 4.7 GHz OC - Sovereign
71.59 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 661 - 4.2 GHz OC (Turbo Boost OFF) - fariz_ - CPU-Z
71.11 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 2400 - 3.7 GHz OC - Rezard - CPU-Z
70.95 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 3570K - 3.4 GHz Stock (Turbo Boost OFF) - Shadow Lady - CPU-Z
70.64 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD FX-6300 - 4.8 GHz OC - ||dav1de|| - CPU-Z
70.11 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i3 550 - 4.1 GHz OC - abdo123 - CPU-Z
69.72 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 2500K - 3.3 GHz Stock (Turbo Boost ON) - Rezard
69.22 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD FX-4300 - 4.62 GHz OC - DaTankAC
68.97 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i3 540 - 4.0 GHz OC - pbellh - CPU-Z
68.38 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 2500K - 3.3 GHz Stock (Turbo Boost ON) - cyber
67.94 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i7 920 - 3.6 GHz OC - Master_DX



My entry.

Westmere-EP intel XEON E5640 @ 4.15ghz. http://valid.x86.fr/w1nvft

77.11FPS







http://forums.pcsx2.net/Thread-CPU-Benchmark-designed-for-PCSX2-based-on-FFX-2


----------



## phill (Jul 2, 2016)

I'll give it a go and see what I can come up with for giggles


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 2, 2016)

That bench... from 2010? What is a PCSX2/PCSX2 game? Is it relevant to today?


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 2, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> That bench... from 2010? What is a PCSX2/PCSX2 game? Is it relevant to today?



Playstation 2 emulation which relies on IPC.


----------



## phill (Jul 2, 2016)

I still bench when I feel like it, anything from 3D Mark 2001SE (well used to for HWBot) and such right up to the latest and greatest..  It might not be relevant as such but it can just be fun and hope that your on the money for others around what you are getting  

But I think I need to be testing out gaming not so many benchmarks!!   I need to learn to enjoy my PC not use it as a testing tool lol


----------



## Ethereal (Jul 2, 2016)

Easy Rhino said:


> look at my system specs. both systems are rock solid. this thread actually confirms for me that buying a 970 would not be a mistake given the age of the x58 chipset.



I bought the i7-970 used for 150 USD 7 months back

The 970 clock rate is default at 24/25 or so, basically you can only up it one cycle and that is is. The rest of the overclock past 3.333ghz requires the BCLK

My motherboard seems to be picky about booting into any OS once I up the BCLK. Something I need to resolve for the sake of keeping my system future proofed but for the most part. The board makes some sort of electrical noises. It's been like that since I had it but I thought nothing because my dads old computer that he built made noises and ran for 8 years.  

My case aside, people can always hit 3.7 ghz overclock on the 970. My undervolting is really good


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 2, 2016)

If i was a guy outside of the computing world, i would be very much like this guy...



















Actually done some crazy stuff with speakers myself


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 2, 2016)

Recon-UK said:


> Playstation 2 emulation which relies on IPC.


So a 2 gen old console and instruction sets off that?!! Ok. Seems useless today...

I cant even figure out how to run that garbage, LOL!


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 2, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> So a 2 gen old console and instruction sets off that?!! Ok. Seems useless today...



No one emulates PS2, Gamecube or Wii these days, no you are right.

https://forums.dolphin-emu.org/Thread-new-dolphin-cpu-benchmark-no-game-required

Just as in PCSX2, AMD remains the bottom runner and is not even capable of driving many Gamecube games to full speed in Dolphin.

Dolphin even uses DX12.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 2, 2016)

Yes, if you want to emulate 2 generations old consoles, a 6 year old CPU can handle it. 

Cool.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 2, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Yes, if you want to emulate 2 generations old consoles, a 6 year old CPU can handle it.
> 
> Cool.



And an AMD from 4 years a go can't. 

Not hating on AMD, just bragging about how good Nehalem still is, get rekt


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 2, 2016)

LOL, it seems to need cheerleaders...and people to justify why they still have it. Have fun bub!


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 2, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> LOL, it seems to need cheerleaders...and people to justify why they still have it. Have fun bub!



I'm here for the fun, i bought this entire system like errr just over a week ago coming from an AMD Phenom II, before that i had the 2500K system which i sold off


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 2, 2016)

Yes AMD is quite behind in CPU.  This is not really breaking news though.



EarthDog said:


> LOL, it seems to need cheerleaders...



No, not really.  It does attract them though.


----------



## Ithanul (Jul 3, 2016)

Yeah, running emulation of a console is no joke.  That will beat the crap out of a CPU or at least put it through some serious work since it has to act like a piece of hardware that it is not.
Or heck, make it run Cities:Skylines.  Once the population get pretty high and it trying to simulate all that traffic it starts tanking bad.

I don't have a X58 myself, but I still see some of the peeps over in OCN rocking them strong.  Myself, I nabbed a X79 for cheap off a person with mobo and RAM.  Pretty sweet deal since I nabbed to all in total for around 350 bucks.  I have tinker with a X99 system since I was helping a guy put the computer together for him (got a free lunch out of it).  Only thing I got to say, it sure was finicky bugger with OCing.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 3, 2016)

And then there are the actual consoles running 8 low power jaguar cores. Rumor milling into Zen chips shortly. Man those amd parts must just be the worst. That or companies need to learn to code better one of the two.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 3, 2016)

Why don't you buy one since you are so into them? Don't come crying though.


----------



## Melvis (Jul 3, 2016)

Recon-UK said:


> FX 8320 at 5ghz.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What are the results with more stock clock settings? Ill do the test at home myself but thought id see what you would get as I have found the higher you clock the FX chips the worst they scale, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 3, 2016)

Melvis said:


> What are the results with more stock clock settings? Ill do the test at home myself but thought id see what you would get as I have found the higher you clock the FX chips the worst they scale, but I could be wrong.



That was pulled from the CPU-Z benchmark thread, i should have actually mentioned that, BTW i'm slapping a H100 on my XEON and aiming for 4.7ghz as my result, don't actually sigh... as i am a god hand at overclocking  

Say about 2V through the CPU, take a trip to Russia, sub zero cooling with H100, easy 6ghz


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jul 3, 2016)

Recon-UK said:


> That was pulled from the CPU-Z benchmark thread, i should have actually mentioned that, BTW i'm slapping a H100 on my XEON and aiming for 4.7ghz as my result, don't actually sigh... as i am a god hand at overclocking




sighing in eager anticipation................

ive got H100 on my X5670


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 3, 2016)

Well 1.288v @ 4.15ghz, 1.3v at 4.25ghz, and for 4.4ghz this needs 1.34v... LOL

Never seen a chip be so linear with voltage, but i'm down with it, the board may cap out at around 220mhz BCLK, so i will have to do some adjustments to go further over that, maybe some PCI-E OC'ing.

Kind of an odd question, but @CAPSLOCKSTUCK  you ever thought of upgrading to a beastly PSU?
Almost every bit of hardware i get i can take way out of spec and much further than the average joe with ease, but i noticed people are on mid end to budget end PSU's, i run a ridiculous 1KW Strider which uses an Enhance design, hugely powerful single 12V rail and a max output of 1130watts, also ludicrous 12v ripple stability.

Just wondering if my results are more to do with how damn good the PSU is?

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/02/27/how_does_my_power_supply_impact_overclocking/#.V3jRFiIkq70

Interesting... may have found my answer lol.


"
The answer to your question is that it depends on how well managed your heat output is; how long you want the hardware to last; and how far towards the edges of the ATX12V specification you want to be.



Ripple/noise have what I would call a moderate amount of impact on overclocking per se in the short term unless the values are massively out of specification. However, the closer you are to a clean output the less work that is done by the downstream VRMs, MOSFETs, and capacitors. Less work means the less wear, the less heat, etc. that these components experience. The less heat these downstream components experience, the less heat you have to manage in the system, which calculates to longer component lifespan. The longer you are able to push the boundaries of those components (potentially) before you cross that line where those fail or the effects of those stressed components on a GPU or CPU of increased voltage to those components to overcome the increased resistance (it is somewhat of a viscous circle) that causes heat problems in the CPU/GPU itself. That all said, in reality, the ripple/noise values are more a long term damage issue due to the better quality motherboards these days. (This is of course subjective depending on how "long," "long term" is, but not in the few minutes you are trying to hit some peak OC then back off to a lower value.) But your poor hard drives....oh the data!



Voltage regulation can be a much more obvious problem. All of the things above apply to voltage regulation since voltages are "stable" (or so we hope). Not seeing the same kind of change rates we see with ripple/noise, we don't have a cyclic problem but a continuous one where we are stepping down a voltage (12v mostly) to something much lower and in the efficiency side of things we are seeing losses in the form of heat. So, again, all of the issues you have with components on your motherboard or your video card heating up, and the stability issues that comes with overclocking. The second issue is, "Are we in specification or not?" All PSUs have some sort of base set point for each voltage in that particular unit due to tolerances and screening of components. It is rare that the set point is nominal (12v, 5v, or 3.3v). So, the regulation becomes immediately important because if your unit is near one of the specification limits, or you just have really poor regulation, and a load causes the voltage to exit the specification limit, you may exceed what your VRMs can handle. Or you maybe where thsoe can handle it but those are unable to provide the voltage called, and then that is it. So, you want a unit with a good of voltage regulation as you can get so you don't deviate anymore from whatever its set point within the spec range is than is necessary so there is less stress on those components downstream.



All of that said, how much does all this affect stable GPU and CPU overclocks in a scientifically quantifiable way? Holy god the number of confounding variables! The only thing I would reliably say and not end up eating a hat without access to a TON of programmable power sources and CPU and GPU cooling combinations is that less ripple is better and tighter voltage regulation is better than loose.



I hope that helps."


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jul 3, 2016)

Recon-UK said:


> you ever thought of upgrading to a beastly PSU?




It never crossed my mind.

The highest i ever saw is 313 w on my system and i use CX 430 which is ideal i think but i can see where you are coming from.

It is the one part i always buy new and i cant justify spending so much on an under utilized component.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 3, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> It never crossed my mind.
> 
> The highest i ever saw is 313 w on my system and i use CX 430 which is ideal i think but i can see where you are coming from.
> 
> It is the one part i always buy new and i cant justify spending so much on an under utilized component.



It depends hugely on the type of setup you foresee yourself using, i wanted one that would last me years, it's 6 years old now... LOL 

Good vid for you and others.


----------



## FireFox (Jul 3, 2016)

X58 obsolete?
Yes 

Can we still play games on it?
Absolutely.

Am i/ are we X58 owners in a worry to upgrade to a new platform?

Why should i/we if we are happy with our obsolete X58 platform.

My Sexy obsolete X58 Server

Unfortunately out of service because I don't know what to use it for


----------



## cdawall (Jul 3, 2016)

Recon-UK said:


> Why don't you buy one since you are so into them? Don't come crying though.



Quite a few people have hence why amd is still around, it's only a multi-billion dollar industry  whenever people talk mad shit on amd products remember it took until skylake for multithreading on Intel to catch up to the crap fx chips. We may actually see them start to be useful as games actually start multithreading correctly.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 3, 2016)

Recon-UK said:


> BTW i'm slapping a H100 on my XEON and aiming for 4.7ghz



Me >>>>>>>>>Soon to be x5650 under Raystorm Water block and 360 XSPC Rad


----------



## phill (Jul 3, 2016)

I think my X58 systems will be around with me until I'm old and grey   I don't see me changing or getting rid of them....


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 4, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Quite a few people have hence why amd is still around, it's only a multi-billion dollar industry  whenever people talk mad shit on amd products remember it took until skylake for multithreading on Intel to catch up to the crap fx chips. We may actually see them start to be useful as games actually start multithreading correctly.



Heheheh

When i start my true overclocking escapade on this system, bring your best FX chip please.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 4, 2016)

Recon-UK said:


> Heheheh
> 
> When i start my true overclocking escapade on this system, bring your best FX chip please.



challenge him to a bench-off.

no really, pick benchmarks you can both run and make a thread about it. compare stock, same MHz (CPU+ram) and then balls to the wall.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 4, 2016)

Mussels said:


> challenge him to a bench-off.
> 
> no really, pick benchmarks you can both run and make a thread about it. compare stock, same MHz (CPU+ram) and then balls to the wall.



They will be similar right up until you go cold than the fx chip wins.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 4, 2016)

Mussels said:


> challenge him to a bench-off.
> 
> no really, pick benchmarks you can both run and make a thread about it. compare stock, same MHz (CPU+ram) and then balls to the wall.



I will wait until i have all the kit ready, i need a mounting kit for the H100 and i need time for my balls to regrow. I'm joking just the H100 kit, so later this month 



cdawall said:


> They will be similar right up until you go cold than the fx chip wins.



The FX will lose in single thread, and won't go passed 5.2ghz.  (water)

I'm sure i will be around 1.4-1.45v at 4.7ghz, i'm thinking the silicon will need a high voltage bump near it's maximum OC plus a lot of tweaking to other things on the board, the FX however will need 1.6v or higher which is scary  to get 5.2ghz.

Also i'm not off my head, everything is calculated mentally and by experience.

Also an i7 930 can get there, though for 45nm, you need way more voltas and they run a lot hotter.

http://www.overclock.net/t/871320/i7-930-4713mhz-help-me-to-4-8ghz

My XEON is 32nm 

4.15ghz XEON.










FX can't even hang until it's at 5ghz.

Note to self:  Learn to use multiquote and edit tabs.


----------



## phill (Jul 4, 2016)

I think we needed some more pictures so here's a few of my X58 rigs...

















Altogether...


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 4, 2016)

Recon... nice quadruple post... you new here? LOL!!!!

Edit your posts to add big guy. 

(reported for cleanup )


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 4, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Fucking A recon... nice quadruple post... you new here? LOL!!!!



I went a bit overboard? ayyy LMAO!

Sorry, i am a defender...










But for real, i need to remember next time, apologies to all.


----------



## RealNeil (Jul 4, 2016)

phill said:


> I think we needed some more pictures so here's a few of my X58 rigs...Altogether...



Sweet looking rigs. All of them. Good pics too.


----------



## phill (Jul 5, 2016)

Thank you   The specs of them are pretty decent and the 920 CPUs in the EVGA 759 and 762 were really good!!  

I'm currently doing a bit of overclocking work with my X99 system at the moment but my main problem with that is I have no idea what case to put it in!!    Since Danger Den are no longer, I'm at a bit of a loss!!  Plus I can't seem to find a case I like that would fit in what cooling I'd like   I'm not winning at all at the moment lol


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 5, 2016)




----------



## EarthDog (Jul 5, 2016)

LOL Recon... just talking to hear yourself speak at this point, LOL! Fighting a fight only those in the battle care to see. LOL! 

A couple of things with that vid...

1. Its old. Games are ancient. So are the GPUs. 
2. The SLI combo is WEAK. 

Id like to see this testing with modern GPUs and modern games... as I have shown in here before...

Not a good video/example.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 5, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> LOL Recon... just talking to hear yourself speak at this point, LOL! Fighting a fight only those in the battle care to see. LOL!
> 
> A couple of things with that vid...
> 
> ...



Ehhh oh it's not a serious post lol, was just adding to the thread.


----------



## Kmpoaquests (Jul 19, 2016)

I joined this forum just because I Googled the same question.  I'm not nor do I feel limited by my water-cooled 930 oced to 4.4 on heavy everyday use.  Paired it worth with sli gtx 480 along with a 32 inch 1440p monitor and there hasn't been one game I couldn't enjoy on ultra settings or at the least above average settings

This is coming from a dota/poe player

But to be fair I don't think games or software advanced to the point where they take full advantage of more resources like in the 90s or mid 00s. Nowadays everything is a dam port. Only changes I see coming is if you are into VR or a fan of sword art online


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 19, 2016)

Kmpoaquests said:


> I joined this forum just because I Googled the same question.  I'm not nor do I feel limited by my water-cooled 930 oced to 4.4 on heavy everyday use.  Paired it worth with sli gtx 480 along with a 32 inch 1440p monitor and there hasn't been one game I couldn't enjoy on ultra settings or at the least above average settings
> 
> This is coming from a dota/poe player
> 
> But to be fair I don't think games or software advanced to the point where they take full advantage of more resources like in the 90s or mid 00s. Nowadays everything is a dam port. Only changes I see coming is if you are into VR or a fan of sword art online


Upgrade those old dogs, that CPU can do a lot better than that.


----------



## Tomgang (Jul 19, 2016)

oh this tread still alive. Well how about as an reward brand new bench results of my old junk. all bench are now done with CPU at 4.4 GHz or ass close as possible to that and thats with air cooling after i have spend time to get the last bit out of my cpu. But i admit cpu temp were also pretty hign, but if i had water cooling 4,4 Ghz for every day is possible i would think.

CPU-z bench.






Heaven benchmark 3099 score.






Valley benchmark score 4756











3DMark firestrike score 16537.






http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13192560

And off cause the new DX 12 bench 3DMark Time Spy score 6454






http://www.3dmark.com/spy/12345

Thats it sorry


----------



## Tomgang (Jul 19, 2016)

Kmpoaquests said:


> I joined this forum just because I Googled the same question.  I'm not nor do I feel limited by my water-cooled 930 oced to 4.4 on heavy everyday use.  Paired it worth with sli gtx 480 along with a 32 inch 1440p monitor and there hasn't been one game I couldn't enjoy on ultra settings or at the least above average settings
> 
> This is coming from a dota/poe player
> 
> But to be fair I don't think games or software advanced to the point where they take full advantage of more resources like in the 90s or mid 00s. Nowadays everything is a dam port. Only changes I see coming is if you are into VR or a fan of sword art online



You would still get a huge improvement if you get one or two newer cards over those old GTX 480. Just going from two GTX 660 TI sli to two GTX 970 sli in pc gave me alot of improvement in many games. special in the more demanding games like crysis 3 gave me alot of ekstra power to play with. just se my benchmark says it all.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 19, 2016)

@Tomgang  Your CPU is scoring what my XEON does, but my XEON is 100mhz slower @ 4.3, what's up with that? CPU-Z i mean.


----------



## Tomgang (Jul 19, 2016)

Recon-UK said:


> @Tomgang  Your CPU is scoring what my XEON does, but my XEON is 100mhz slower @ 4.3, what's up with that? CPU-Z i mean.



what you se is the better clock for clock performence going from 45 MN (my cpu) to 32 NM (your cpu). Your cpu is a 32 MN manufaturing like the 6 core xeon and I7 cpu like I7 970 or gluftown (gluftown is the I7 parts) as they are known under by code name just like my cpu is known as Nehalem/bloomfield.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 20, 2016)

Tomgang said:


> You would still get a huge improvement if you get one or two newer cards over those old GTX 480. Just going from two GTX 660 TI sli to two GTX 970 sli in pc gave me alot of improvement in many games. special in the more demanding games like crysis 3 gave me alot of ekstra power to play with. just se my benchmark says it all.


He would see a significant improvement from a modern CPU as well as overclocking your current one. The glass ceiling is lower in SLI because it doesn't have the, ehh, fortitude to push it as well as modern chips. You will undoubtedly see improvements over 480 SLI with modern cards as well. But again, glass ceiling... buying a ferrari and only allowed to drive it on the roads, not at the track... etc.


----------

