# Upgrade i7 920 to xeon or i5 4670k



## Klaasjansen211 (Oct 12, 2015)

Hey im new to the forum, but I have a question. I recently bought a gtx 970 and played gta 5 on max (with AA on 4x) with 30-45 fps.
Now am I wondering if a xeon x5660 or a i5 4670k with msi z97 gaming5,
For 220 euros second hand will get a lot more fps and/or faster experience
I currently have a i7 920 @3,7 ghz on stock voltage and a p6t deluxe v2 motherboard.

Thanks for the advice!


----------



## AlexT (Oct 12, 2015)

Hi, 
First of all X5660 is a six core CPU and most games do not make use of more then 4 cores, so X5660 will provide about 66% of its performance for gaming. Another drawback for this CPU is the 1366 socket for witch is difficult to find a motherboard, not to mention those available are at very high prices. 
The 4670K CPU on the other hand is from newer generation, so better support and technologies, and in games it will make full use of its quad cores witch are at higher speed then those of X5660. 
For other things then gaming Xeon might be a better choise because of its 6 cores and better OC capabilities, but for games 4670k is the smarter and cheaper choise.


----------



## R-T-B (Oct 12, 2015)

AlexT said:


> Hi,
> First of all X5660 is a six core CPU and most games do not make use of more then 4 cores, so X5660 will provide about 66% of its performance for gaming. Another drawback for this CPU is the 1366 socket for witch is difficult to find a motherboard, not to mention those available are at very high prices.



He has a P6T deluxe mobo (socket 1366) already.


----------



## AlexT (Oct 12, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> He has a P6T deluxe mobo (socket 1366) already.



I was about to edit my previous post when i saw yours. Just realized 920 is a 1366 socket...  Indeed he can use that, therefore X5660 is the better choise. With some smart overclock it can beat 4670K in games.


----------



## Outback Bronze (Oct 12, 2015)

4 cores vs 6 cores with HT.

My vote is the xeon


----------



## timta2 (Oct 12, 2015)

The Westmere Xeons are also rather awesome overclockers. They are one of the major reasons that 1366 boards are hard to come by these days.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 12, 2015)

check out the Xeon owners club thread for some examples of AWESOME OVERCLOCKING examples  using x56**  chips

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

go with the Xeon


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 12, 2015)

If you're planning on staying with same platform, certainly the Xeon. If you'll change the platform, then either X99 and a hexacore/octacore or if you wait for a Skylake-E...


----------



## silentbogo (Oct 12, 2015)

Upgraded my i7-920 to a Xeon X5650 and another 6GB RAM recently. The total was a little under $150. The performance is excellent, but I don't do much gaming lately.
It is a real pain in the ass to overclock Xeons, but with x5660 out of the box you will get higher stock clock speeds, lower TDP and DDR3-1333 support and double the QPI throughput, which is already enough reasons to buy it.


----------



## Klaasjansen211 (Oct 12, 2015)

Wow, I didn't know my p6t deluxe v2 mobo could get a second hand i5 4670k if I sold it on ebay . 
A xeon can beat the i5 4670k on games when overclocked? Im waiting for the new  games to Come out and check if my fps is still good enough for my taste. I hope I can take the i7 920 for another 2 years and get a whole new pc. 
I just dont know how much fps it will give and how good xeons are just for gaming.


----------



## silentbogo (Oct 12, 2015)

Klaasjansen211 said:


> Wow, I didn't know my p6t deluxe v2 mobo could get a second hand i5 4670k if I sold it on ebay .
> A xeon can beat the i5 4670k on games when overclocked? Im waiting for the new  games to Come out and check if my fps is still good enough for my taste. I hope I can take the i7 920 for another 2 years and get a whole new pc.
> I just dont know how much fps it will give and how good xeons are just for gaming.


At this point an upgrade for you is not that critical. Just hold on to your present rig or trade-in for X5660, and save up some money for 2016 Cannonlake.


----------



## Kanan (Oct 12, 2015)

> A xeon can beat the i5 4670k on games when overclocked?


Don't want to interrupt the Xeon-fanparade here, but the Xeon is not good for games and compared to the Haswell based i5 4670K it has no chance. Most games use 4 Threads so its in the sweetspot of the i5 4670K, the Xeon has 12 Threads of which 6-8 won't be used, and the games using more than 4 threads are a exception. Thats the first problem. The second problem is the Xeon ist old and has a low IPC compared to a Haswell CPU, even Sandy Bridge. It was a good workstation CPU, but all LGA1366-CPUs are getting a bit old now. However, my advice to you would be this: I think your settings in GTA 5 are too high. Tone them down a bit, GTA 5 needs too much resources if the settings are too high, the 970 is a good GPU but not a 980 Ti or so, so you shouldn't play on Ultra settings, but on very high settings. And you could try overclocking the 920 a bit more ... at about 4 GHz or more its still a good CPU even at its age. My last advice: don't buy the Xeon, it's worth zero (0!) FPS in games compared to the 920, because the extra threads aren't used and its clock speed isn't any higher nor its IPC. The Haswell i5 would be a decent upgrade but i'm not sure how much FPS you would gain and if its worth it at this point. First try to tune the i7 920 a bit more, then see what happens and report back here so we can decide. Don't set the graphics in GTA 5 too high, or it hurts your performance for little graphical gain.


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 12, 2015)

Apparently some have forgotten about the DX12's multithreading improvements. If games don't use more than 4 threads now, that doesn't mean they won't in next 6 months...


----------



## Kanan (Oct 12, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Apparently some have forgotten about the DX12's multithreading improvements. If games don't use more than 4 threads now, that doesn't mean they won't in next 6 months...


Don't forget most games are sitting on 2-4 Threads now .. DX12 will change that to 4-6 at best. Example: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/DirectX-12-Software-255525/Specials/Spiele-Benchmark-1172196/
But even with 6 cores fully used the Xeon is inferior, and by far. IPC of that old Xeon is just bad compared to Haswell. He should keep his i7 920 and upgrade later to Skylake or Zen (if its good), thats the best he can do, I think.


----------



## silentbogo (Oct 12, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Apparently some have forgotten about the DX12's multithreading improvements. If games don't use more than 4 threads now, that doesn't mean they won't in next 6 months...


It is not the multithreading that I'm worried about, but the actual CPU usage. Has anyone seen a game that comes even close to 100% CPU load on an i5 or i7?
DX12 comes out, but it will take another year or two for DX12 titles to roll out, which is exactly the point at which the upgrade is reasonable. But even then there is no guarantee that a game optimised for whatevermany threads, but using only a fraction of the CPU resources will run significantly better on an Octacore with 20% load, than on a quad with HT and 40% load.


----------



## CounterZeus (Oct 12, 2015)

Kanan said:


> Don't want to interrupt the Xeon-fanparade here, but the Xeon is not good for games and compared to the Haswell based i5 4670K it has no chance. Most games use 4 Threads so its in the sweetspot of the i5 4670K, the Xeon has 12 Threads of which 6-8 won't be used, and the games using more than 4 threads are a exception. Thats the first problem. The second problem is the Xeon ist old and has a low IPC compared to a Haswell CPU, even Sandy Bridge. It was a good workstation CPU, but all LGA1366-CPUs are getting a bit old now. However, my advice to you would be this: I think your settings in GTA 5 are too high. Tone them down a bit, GTA 5 needs too much resources if the settings are too high, the 970 is a good GPU but not a 980 Ti or so, so you shouldn't play on Ultra settings, but on very high settings. And you could try overclocking the 920 a bit more ... at about 4 GHz or more its still a good CPU even at its age. My last advice: don't buy the Xeon, it's worth zero (0!) FPS in games compared to the 920, because the extra threads aren't used and its clock speed isn't any higher nor its IPC. The Haswell i5 would be a decent upgrade but i'm not sure how much FPS you would gain and if its worth it at this point. First try to tune the i7 920 a bit more, then see what happens and report back here so we can decide. Don't set the graphics in GTA 5 too high, or it hurts your performance for little graphical gain.




I agree. Some settings in GTA V aren't meant for anything but the best graphics cards. Try to lower AA, shadows and grass.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Oct 12, 2015)

If you could swing selling all of your X58 stuff I would say go for it since the prices of X58 are very high.


----------



## Klaasjansen211 (Oct 12, 2015)

brandonwh64 said:


> If you could swing selling all of your X58 stuff I would say go for it since the prices of X58 are very high.


I don't know how selling on ebay works, but maybe ill try it and swap it for an i5 4690k or something.
Or ill hold onto my wonderful i7 920, oc is further and get a ssd. I just feel scrolling through things and starting programs becomes slower every year. A ssd will help with that and i can still max most games and even with some AA. I just need to stop being greedy by wanting to max it to max fps possible  haha.


----------



## Jetster (Oct 12, 2015)

Sell the X58 platform on TPU

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/forums/buy-sell-trade-giveaway-forum.43/


----------



## kniaugaudiskis (Oct 12, 2015)

Klaasjansen211 said:


> I don't know how selling on ebay works, but maybe ill try it and swap it for an i5 4690k or something.
> Or ill hold onto my wonderful i7 920, oc is further and get a ssd. I just feel scrolling through things and starting programs becomes slower every year. A ssd will help with that and i can still max most games and even with some AA. I just need to stop being greedy by wanting to max it to max fps possible  haha.


If I were you, I'd get a Xeon. About a year ago I switched my D0 i7 920 to an X5670 and couldn't be happier. I have overclocked it to 4.2GHz without breaking a sweat. Furthermore, it draws less power and runs way way cooler than the i7 920 which was like a frying pan compared to the Xeon.


----------



## vega22 (Oct 12, 2015)

for gaming dude a modern i5 would be better right now. how much dx12/vulcan will change that i am unsure but that is still tomorrow.

faster storage from more modern chipsets, more ram bandwidth from more modern tech all on top of the increase in ipc of the new cpu will all aid in more fps.

you have a nice x58 setup with i bet you would get a nice return from should you sell it as they are still in high demand from the crunchers who can and do use the extra cores which games do not.


----------



## silentbogo (Oct 12, 2015)

Klaasjansen211 said:


> I don't know how selling on ebay works, but maybe ill try it and swap it for an i5 4690k or something.
> *Or ill hold onto my wonderful i7 920, oc is further and get a ssd*. I just feel scrolling through things and starting programs becomes slower every year. A ssd will help with that and i can still max most games and even with some AA. I just need to stop being greedy by wanting to max it to max fps possible  haha.


I'd start with an SSD. I doubt that even 4.2GHz OC will give you significant performance increase, so don't bother. 

<<== HERE are my current specs and even though my GPU is a slow silent midget comparing to GTX970, I was still able to play Batman:Arkam Knight in 1080p with Medium-to-High settings and gameworks off having some lag only when flying out of the batmobile.

BTW, you should post your full specs. There might be more stuff you could do to your rig to make it run smoother.


----------



## Klaasjansen211 (Oct 12, 2015)

Thanks for all the advice!
I7 920 @3.7 ghz
Asus p6t deluxe v2
Msi gtx 970 gaming 4g
500 watt psu
2 x 4gb ram crucial ballistix @1600 mhz I believe 
1 tb harddrive 

As mentioned earlier, the I5 can be very cheap with a new mobo (220 bucks) and my Asus p6t deluxe is worth something today. But for the difference in price I can get a ssd and get some speed..


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 12, 2015)

silentbogo said:


> It is not the multithreading that I'm worried about, but the actual CPU usage. Has anyone seen a game that comes even close to 100% CPU load on an i5 or i7?
> DX12 comes out, but it will take another year or two for DX12 titles to roll out, which is exactly the point at which the upgrade is reasonable. But even then there is no guarantee that a game optimised for whatevermany threads, but using only a fraction of the CPU resources will run significantly better on an Octacore with 20% load, than on a quad with HT and 40% load.



You don't want CPU at 100% load. That means it'll be fully saturated and caches trashed. Besides, the most impirtant part of DX12 is multithreaded rendering which is basically the easiest to make and use and works across many graphic cards. The more specific DX12 features will take longer to be used if ever even used...


----------



## silentbogo (Oct 12, 2015)

Here's a thing: you need to get 1 more stick of RAM identical to the ones you have. You can get a significant increase in memory performance, because right now you do not utilize triple-channel feature. If your RAM is a bit newer (low-voltage), you should be able to run 3-channel at 1600MHz no problem. I only had complications with 6 sticks of old OCZ Platinum(running 1333@1.35V, triple-channel).


----------



## Klaasjansen211 (Oct 12, 2015)

silentbogo said:


> Here's a thing: you need to get 1 more stick of RAM identical to the ones you have. You can get a significant increase in memory performance, because right now you do not utilize triple-channel feature. If your RAM is a bit newer (low-voltage), you should be able to run 3-channel at 1600MHz no problem. I only had complications with 6 sticks of old OCZ Platinum(running 1333@1.35V, triple-channel).


Will that really improve games and general use? I don't render or edit stuff.


----------



## silentbogo (Oct 12, 2015)

Klaasjansen211 said:


> Will that really improve games and general use? I don't render or edit stuff.


It will improve performance in almost all memory-intensive tasks. Games like Batman:AK, Wolfenstein, BF4 etc. will definitely benefit from that extra 4GB in system and +50% memory throughput.
Just make sure to OC memory settings in BIOS manually, because XMP might not work and will drop it to 1066MHz.


----------



## Klaasjansen211 (Oct 12, 2015)

silentbogo said:


> It will improve performance in almost all memory-intensive tasks. Games like Batman:AK, Wolfenstein, BF4 etc. will definitely benefit from that extra 4GB in system and +50% memory throughput.
> Just make sure to OC memory settings in BIOS manually, because XMP might not work and will drop it to 1066MHz.


So triple channel will make programs run faster? Faster that I can really see  it? Never knew, thanks! 
After another 4 gb, I can add a ssd and oc the i7 a bit further. I think I can handle new games for 2 more years and get 30 fps on ultra /high settings at 1080p


----------



## johnspack (Oct 13, 2015)

Yes,  make sure to be in triple channel mode,  x58 needs it.  Also,  for about 90us delivered you can get a x5650,  oc it to 4.1ghz,  and see a difference.  12 threads can help,  and it's a cheap upgrade.


----------



## Kanan (Oct 13, 2015)

Don't upgrade on that platform. Save the money to switch to a new platform. It won't help to have a 12 thread processor, even 6 is too much 99% of times. I can't stress this enough. 2-4 threads is the sweetspot in gaming today and tomorrow it will be 4-6 threads, most certainly not more than that in the near future. And again, that platform is old. Use it as long as you can, but ultimately switch to Skylake or Zen, depending what suits at the time or is better.

And yeah, triple channel will help, your CPU is old and needs all it can get bandwidth-wise it still would have less than Sandy Bridge with dual-channel, but not by far. It would be a lot better than now, still.


----------



## Scrizz (Oct 13, 2015)

xeon or if you can find an i7 970. 

tehy run cooler, have more cores, and can overclock higher lol


----------



## Scrizz (Oct 13, 2015)

Kanan said:


> Don't upgrade on that platform. Save the money to switch to a new platform. It won't help to have a 12 thread processor, even 6 is too much 99% of times. I can't stress this enough. 2-4 threads is the sweetspot in gaming today and tomorrow it will be 4-6 threads, most certainly not more than that in the near future. And again, that platform is old. Use it as long as you can, but ultimately switch to Skylake or Zen, depending what suits at the time or is better.
> 
> And yeah, triple channel will help, your CPU is old and needs all it can get bandwidth-wise it still would have less than Sandy Bridge with dual-channel, but not by far. It would be a lot better than now, still.


2 threads is garbage.
I can max out my cpu while loading all 50 tabs in firefox....
it gets maxed out very quickly


----------



## Kanan (Oct 13, 2015)

Scrizz said:


> 2 threads is garbage.
> I can max out my cpu while loading all 50 tabs in firefox....
> it gets maxed out very quickly


So an i3 is garbage? Okay. 1st: I talk about gaming, not senseless experiments in a browser. 2nd: I said 2-4 threads, thats a big difference, and what I thought of was a i3, which is still good enough for gaming.


----------



## Klaasjansen211 (Oct 13, 2015)

Will an i7 970 make a big difference? Never looked into that.


----------



## silentbogo (Oct 13, 2015)

Klaasjansen211 said:


> Will an i7 970 make a big difference? Never looked into that.


Not really a good upgrade in terms of price. You could probably get a pair of X5660's for the price of one i7-970. And it lacks DDR3-1333 support, which limits your RAM OC ability.


----------



## Outback Bronze (Oct 13, 2015)

Klaasjansen211 said:


> Will an i7 970 make a big difference? Never looked into that.



I used to run an i7 980 (not to be confused with the 980x) and it was a* joy* CPU. Very similar to the i7 970. I still own an i7 990x. I think the Zeon's you will get cheaper, but don't quote me on that.
It could do 4.5ghz (i7 980) all day long at like 1.38v iirc. I used to run it at 4.2 @ 1.268v. Ran extremely cool also. Every CPU overclocks differently tho so you luck will vary.
I currently have (2) i5 4690k's. One's in my wife's computer and the other in my HTPC and I can tell you right now that these (X58) 6 cores with HT are definitely the beefier CPU's when running multiple graphics cards.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 13, 2015)

Check my specs.....nuff said.


----------



## Aquinus (Oct 13, 2015)

Scrizz said:


> 2 threads is garbage.
> I can max out my cpu while loading all 50 tabs in firefox....
> it gets maxed out very quickly


What is every tab doing, playing a video? I've had 100 tabs open in Chrome barely seeing any CPU use. Now memory use on the other hand is a different story.



CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Check my specs.....nuff said.


The Pentium 4 670 clocked 3.8Ghz but that doesn't mean it's a good CPU in comparison. Enough have been done to Intel's CPUs over the last several CPU generations that for games (which generally can't take advantage of 4 cores,) that a Xeon on 1366 at any given speed, say 4.2Ghz, is going to be slower in just about every respect to a 6600k running at 4.2Ghz. An example of this is that at 4.4Ghz, I suspect that for most games, my 3820 performs a bit better than your Xeon. Not because your Xeon is bad just SB-E can get more done at the same clock speed, just as the 6600k can gets more done than my 3820 at the same clock speed.

So no, not "nuff said."

I think this all depends on the op's budget. If the money is there for a new platform, it might be a good idea but, there is no way a Xeon on skt1366 will compare to a modern i5 or i7, even with more cores because as everyone seem to keep forgetting, more cores does not always mean more performance and this is even more true with games.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 13, 2015)

X 5670   £ 70.00
msi pro £  70.00
12gb ram £ 50.00
xfx 7970  £ 115.00

that was my budget and it bought me a shit hot pc.

I crunch  100% 24/7/365 for the Cruncher Society ( @ 4.0 ghz) and play gtav and project cars  ( @ 4.4ghz)

@Klaasjansen211  ........buy my 5670 so i can get a 5675, you can get  good prices on  X58 mobos in Germany, i have a source if you need one, triple channel ddr 3 is becoming more common on ebay and is well priced.

PS.....i have a spare X5650


----------



## Klaasjansen211 (Oct 13, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> X 5670   £ 70.00
> msi pro £  70.00
> 12gb ram £ 50.00
> xfx 7970  £ 115.00
> ...


As said before, a xeon won't help me much. I can add another of my ram for 30 € and install it for a triple channel. Maybe a ssd in some months. I think im good to go for the next intel  

But thanks!!


----------



## hat (Oct 13, 2015)

Unless you do heavy multithreaded work all the time, you won't see a benefit from replacing the 920 with the Xeon. I'm kind of surprised everyone is recommending you do this.

...But I can't recommend the 4670k today, either. Skylake is out, and better than Haswell. If you're already having to upgrade the entire platform, you may as well go for the latest and greatest, which for you would be Skylake. It's up to you to decide if it's worth it to get the 6700k over the 6600k, with the main difference being hyperthreading. Since you don't do a lot of multithreaded work anyway, it seems the 6600k could be the chip for you.


----------



## Scrizz (Oct 13, 2015)

Kanan said:


> So an i3 is garbage? Okay. 1st: I talk about gaming, not senseless experiments in a browser. 2nd: I said 2-4 threads, thats a big difference, and what I thought of was a i3, which is still good enough for gaming.



2 threads no, 4 yes.  The cpu I'm running right now has just 2 threads. it sucks for almost everything. lol
This is first hand experience, not regurgitated BS spread across the internet.



silentbogo said:


> Not really a good upgrade in terms of price. You could probably get a pair of X5660's for the price of one i7-970. And it lacks DDR3-1333 support, which limits your RAM OC ability.



I ran my 970 with 1600ddr3  I could OC no problem. http://hwbot.org/submission/2501872_









Aquinus said:


> What is every tab doing, playing a video? I've had 100 tabs open in Chrome barely seeing any CPU use.


only one tab had a background video in it.
having only 2 threads makes you painfully aware of how much cpu power is really needed.
Look at my specs, It is all first hand experience



hat said:


> Unless you do heavy multithreaded work all the time, you won't see a benefit from replacing the 920 with the Xeon. I'm kind of surprised everyone is recommending you do this.



People recommend it because it actually makes a big difference.
I personally went from a 960(4 core) to a 970(6 core), and it was a night and day difference.
Everything was faster, the CPU ran cooler and could handle anything I threw at it.

Now, I'm on a 2 core 2 thread CPU. I can't even sneeze before this CPU gets maxed out.
Opening Word 87% maxed, opening Visual Studio 100%, refreshing all firefox tabs 100%........
just opening those apps lol


----------



## silentbogo (Oct 13, 2015)

Scrizz said:


> I ran my 970 with 1600ddr3 I could OC no problem. http://hwbot.org/submission/2501872_


Now I want you to replicate that same result with RAM in triple-channel mode and run something like 3D Mark.


----------



## Klaasjansen211 (Oct 13, 2015)

Would an i7 950 or 960 also be a good upgrade? An I7 970 is too expensive for such an old processor..


----------



## hat (Oct 13, 2015)

I don't think it's worth dumping any money into x58, unless you find a cheap Xeon and can use all the cores, and you already have a board or found one really cheap. Boards are hard to come by, though.



silentbogo said:


> Now I want you to replicate that same result with RAM in triple-channel mode and run something like 3D Mark.



I clocked the snot out of my 920 with triple channel RAM @ 1600. I typically ran 200x18, but I could go up to 200x20 if I wanted. I did go though a few RAM kits though... but I thought the RAM was faulty. After a while I did get it stable though, with the right RAM.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 13, 2015)

SIDE WAYS UPGRADE WITH MORE POTENTIAL
X5670 Xeon
Processor Base Frequency 2.93 GHz
Max Turbo Frequency 3.33 GHz
overclocks to 4Ghz +

6 core 12 thread   fits your motherboard no extra expense there
buy extra ram to run triple channel add a SSD
once up and Running you sell your existing I7 920 ( you should get more for your I7   than you pay for your Xeon ) =(Profit)

the money you save going this route  ( at the moment ) you can put to a newer system LATER
Any other Upgrade for say Skylake or later means buying New CPU New Motherboard new DDR4 Ram

Your system with a Xeon and a SSD  Will Serve you for another Couple of Years


----------



## silentbogo (Oct 13, 2015)

hat said:


> I clocked the snot out of my 920 with triple channel RAM @ 1600. I typically ran 200x18, but I could go up to 200x20 if I wanted. I did go though a few RAM kits though... but I thought the RAM was faulty. After a while I did get it stable though, with the right RAM.



That's my nostalgic screen from 2009. I just got my new rig and started testing for the most stable performance. OCZ Platinum was a total garbage, but I was still able to get some clocks out of it. Basically this is how I ran it 24/7 until  late 2011:
i7-920 @ 3.9GHz (HT Enabled). Pushed to 4.2-4.3 for benchmarks a few times.
3x2GB OCZ @1500MHz 8-8-8-18-1N (triple-channel, 1.5V). Could go as high as claimed by manufacturer 1600MHz 9-9-9-21, but only at the cost of 1.65V and crazy heat.


----------



## peche (Oct 13, 2015)

Klaasjansen211 said:


> Hey im new to the forum, but I have a question. I recently bought a gtx 970 and played gta 5 on max (with AA on 4x) with 30-45 fps.
> Now am I wondering if a xeon x5660 or a i5 4670k with msi z97 gaming5,
> For 220 euros second hand will get a lot more fps and/or faster experience
> I currently have a i7 920 @3,7 ghz on stock voltage and a p6t deluxe v2 motherboard.
> ...




you already have the 1136 board, also the ram, if paling to upgrade get the xeon, decent air or watercooler, for example corsair, coolermaster, thermaltake or nzxt AIO unit, for getting all you can from that processor,

then, consider this,


speeds, 4.0GHZ will be an ideal speed for running it 24/7 at stock voltages, play a little bit OCing,
cooling down your processor well this means more OC possibilities, also wont damage your hardware,
your video card is powerful enough, also your processor is, I know several guys gaming with 870's and 860's old i7's without problems…


also fill your system specs here:  system specs



timta2 said:


> The Westmere Xeons are also rather awesome overclockers. They are one of the major reasons that 1366 boards are hard to come by these days.


most people keep them with xeons for hard-tasking....



marsey99 said:


> for gaming dude a modern i5 would be better right now. how much dx12/vulcan will change that i am unsure but that is still tomorrow.
> 
> faster storage from more modern chipsets, more ram bandwidth from more modern tech all on top of the increase in ipc of the new cpu will all aid in more fps.
> 
> you have a nice x58 setup with i bet you would get a nice return from should you sell it as they are still in high demand from the crunchers who can and do use the extra cores which games do not.


seems legit... x58 xeon builds are highly priced now days, for crunching, heavy tasking... several things,



silentbogo said:


> I'd start with an SSD. I doubt that even 4.2GHz OC will give you significant performance increase, so don't bother.
> 
> <<== HERE are my current specs and even though my GPU is a slow silent midget comparing to GTX970, I was still able to play Batman:Arkam Knight in 1080p with Medium-to-High settings and gameworks off having some lag only when flying out of the batmobile.
> 
> BTW, you should post your full specs. There might be more stuff you could do to your rig to make it run smoother.


+1 here, SSD, nice cooling, and also decent PSU and monitor, that X58 could be there for 2 years more, 



Klaasjansen211 said:


> Thanks for all the advice!
> I7 920 @3.7 ghz
> Asus p6t deluxe v2
> Msi gtx 970 gaming 4g
> ...


nice setup, do us a please and fill it here , 
what about the  500W PSU, can you tell us more? brand, model, efficiency certification? 



silentbogo said:


> Here's a thing: you need to get 1 more stick of RAM identical to the ones you have. You can get a significant increase in memory performance, because right now you do not utilize triple-channel feature. If your RAM is a bit newer (low-voltage), you should be able to run 3-channel at 1600MHz no problem. I only had complications with 6 sticks of old OCZ Platinum(running 1333@1.35V, triple-channel).


thats something that i miss on ivy bridge, no triple channel memory.... take full advantage of it, you will get a boost, for sure, 


Klaasjansen211 said:


> Will that really improve games and general use? I don't render or edit stuff.


pretty much !!!



dorsetknob said:


> SIDE WAYS UPGRADE WITH MORE POTENTIAL
> X5670 Xeon
> Processor Base Frequency 2.93 GHz
> Max Turbo Frequency 3.33 GHz
> ...


this !


----------



## Klaasjansen211 (Oct 13, 2015)

peche said:


> you already have the 1136 board, also the ram, if paling to upgrade get the xeon, decent air or watercooler, for example corsair, coolermaster, thermaltake or nzxt AIO unit, for getting all you can from that processor,
> 
> then, consider this,
> 
> ...


I believe it's a 80 plus bronze 500 watt psu. I will look it up and add it to my account. I also have a cooler master 212 evo. 3,8 was max without adjusting voltage. So I can clock it to 4,2 I believe. It wouldnt boot otherwise.
I still dont know if xeon will help, cause I mostly play games with the pc. The opinions vary a lot
and what xeon is best for under 100 €. X5660 or x5650 or different?
And also, my i7 920 will only get me 40 € if I can sell it.

Im still very pleased with my old pc. Spend extra on the mobo and processor and can see it paid off 

Thx for the large answer


----------



## peche (Oct 13, 2015)

Klaasjansen211 said:


> I believe it's a 80 plus bronze 500 watt psu. I will look it up and add it to my account. I also have a cooler master 212 evo. 3,8 was max without adjusting voltage. So I can clock it to 4,2 I believe. It wouldnt boot otherwise.
> I still dont know if xeon will help, cause I mostly play games with the pc. The opinions vary a lot
> and what xeon is best for under 100 €. X5660 or x5650 or different?
> And also, my i7 920 will only get me 40 € if I can sell it.
> ...


we are here to help!
that old rig can still do pretty much for you, trust me, 
SSD and proper drivers and configurations can do pretty much for almost every rig, i do have and old i7 that serves me pretty much!



Klaasjansen211 said:


> and what xeon is best for under 100 €. X5660 or x5650 or different?


take a look, 

official results comparing specs by specs
my opinion: X5660  



Regards,


----------



## Klaasjansen211 (Oct 13, 2015)

peche said:


> we are here to help!
> that old rig can still do pretty much for you, trust me,
> SSD and proper drivers and configurations can do pretty much for almost every rig, i do have and old i7 that serves me pretty much!
> 
> ...



The higher the number the better but more expensive it seems. But I still dont know if it will really crank up the fps in the games coming in 1-2 years. I don't want to bottleneck my gtx 970 of course.


----------



## peche (Oct 13, 2015)

not even your i7 920 will botlleneck it ...


----------



## Scrizz (Oct 13, 2015)

Klaasjansen211 said:


> Would an i7 950 or 960 also be a good upgrade? An I7 970 is too expensive for such an old processor..


get the xeon with 6 cores. the 950 and 960 are not worth it.


----------



## Kanan (Oct 14, 2015)

Seems you unleashed the LGA1366/Oldschool fanboys here @OP.  Fact is, gaming is right now, and in the not too distant future, at 2-4 threads at maximum (few exceptions like BF4, has 6-8 theads utilized, thats it). So its useless to switch from an i7 920 (4-8 threads) to an 6 core Xeon (6-12 threads). Don't waste your time and money. Get a Skylake i5 or wait for Zen, what you like better and depending when you will buy it. Right now, best for you is just, get a 3rd ram for triple channel bandwidth power, that should yield some % increase in performance, thats it. The wisest thing to do, is just that. 

My two cents.


----------



## Klaasjansen211 (Oct 14, 2015)

Kanan said:


> Seems you unleashed the LGA1366/Oldschool fanboys here @OP.  Fact is, gaming is right now, and in the not too distant future, at 2-4 threads at maximum (few exceptions like BF4, has 6-8 theads utilized, thats it). So its useless to switch from an i7 920 (4-8 threads) to an 6 core Xeon (6-12 threads). Don't waste your time and money. Get a Skylake i5 or wait for Zen, what you like better and depending when you will buy it. Right now, best for you is just, get a 3rd ram for triple channel bandwidth power, that should yield some % increase in performance, thats it. The wisest thing to do, is just that.
> 
> My two cents.


Thank you! Thats the answer I needed. Won't dx 12 change that? Or not for at least 2 years?


----------



## Kanan (Oct 14, 2015)

Klaasjansen211 said:


> Thank you! Thats the answer I needed. Won't dx 12 change that? Or not for at least 2 years?


Np.  Yeah DX12 will help, in that the 4 cores you already have get better utilized and if you have even more than that, say 6 cores or an i7 with 4 cores and 8 threads, and the game really needs it, it will be utilized somewhat too. 6 cores would be for ultra highend gaming, I'd say and 2 core with HT (4 threads like an i3 CPU) is for the small budget PC. Between them is the sweetspot that still will be 4 cores for some years.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/DirectX-12-Software-255525/Specials/Spiele-Benchmark-1172196/
Down there in the link you will find a example how Titan X / Fury X scale in a DX12 game called Fable with more cores and HT.


----------



## oinkypig (Oct 14, 2015)

leaning towards the x56xx's which is able to clock as high as the x5690. so good luck deciding
beginning with the x5650> = $50 = max 4.6ghz 22x
<x5675 = $110 = max 4.8ghz 23x
axe all the other xeons.....


----------



## Klaasjansen211 (Oct 14, 2015)

Kanan said:


> Np.  Yeah DX12 will help, in that the 4 cores you already have get better utilized and if you have even more than that, say 6 cores or an i7 with 4 cores and 8 threads, and the game really needs it, it will be utilized somewhat too. 6 cores would be for ultra highend gaming, I'd say and 2 core with HT (4 threads like an i3 CPU) is for the small budget PC. Between them is the sweetspot that still will be 4 cores for some years.
> 
> http://www.pcgameshardware.de/DirectX-12-Software-255525/Specials/Spiele-Benchmark-1172196/
> Down there in the link you will find a example how Titan X / Fury X scale in a DX12 game called Fable with more cores and HT.


Thanks again ! Ill hold on to my 920 and buy a third ram and ssd when I need to clean my pc up with a fresh install of Windows!


----------



## Kanan (Oct 14, 2015)

Klaasjansen211 said:


> Thanks again ! Ill hold on to my 920 and buy a third ram and ssd when I need to clean my pc up with a fresh install of Windows!


Good decision, if you need advice again, feel free to message me anytime.


----------



## Klaasjansen211 (Oct 14, 2015)

Kanan said:


> Good decision, if you need advice again, feel free to message me anytime.


Ill post the results when I overclocked my 920 with higher voltage, I think ill do it on sunday and see what he can do!
Whats a relative safe voltage I can go at maximum?


----------



## Kanan (Oct 14, 2015)

Okay. 1.2 to 1.4 voltage is safe, don't go any higher than that.


----------



## silentbogo (Oct 14, 2015)

I never had to go higher than 1.45, but 1.4 is a safe max.

Try 1.35V on CPU and QPI, set DRAM voltage and timings manually and do 200MHz x20. 
See how it feels, run a few benchmarks.


----------



## oinkypig (Oct 14, 2015)

Ive owned both stepping versions of the i7 920. \ overclock as long as you run not any higher than 4.0ghz on C0 and 4.2ghz on D0 versions of i7 920. you might be able to get away @ 4.3 with a D0 revision chip. Thankfully if you kabootle the QPI regulators you will save your system of windows from all but the deadliest of bsod. You wouldnt believe me if I told you it actually works.


----------



## Klaasjansen211 (Oct 14, 2015)

Thanks for all the fast replies yet again!  I have a D0 and went to 3.8 ghz without voltage. I guess 4.0-4.2 will go easy on 1.35V


----------



## peche (Oct 14, 2015)

Klaasjansen211 said:


> Thanks again ! Ill hold on to my 920 and buy a third ram and ssd when I need to clean my pc up with a fresh install of Windows!


x64 bits Os and also if possible repaste processor....


----------



## Klaasjansen211 (Nov 8, 2015)

Just to let you guys know: I overclocked my I7 920 further to 4,0 ghz on 1,35 volts! On 100% load it gets 85 degrees celcius, but I never get 100% load while gaming so ill check my temps with the upcoming games. The only thing I cant do, is get my ram on 1600 mhz.. I cant choose it manually and i can only choose 1400 or 1800, but the pc won't boot on 1800 mhz. The ram is 1,35v but the motherboard cant go lower than 1,5v.
I also added 1 extra ram so it runs on triple channel  and a fresh windows 10 install + a ssd. The ssd speeds up the overal experience a lot! Didn't know everthing would becomes so fast.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Nov 8, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Apparently some have forgotten about the DX12's multithreading improvements. If games don't use more than 4 threads now, that doesn't mean they won't in next 6 months...



They won't... it's rare to find a game that uses 4 threads now. It will still be a few years until 4 threads is the norm for gaming and by then poth of these cpu's will be outdated.


----------



## RejZoR (Nov 8, 2015)

No, then those hexa cores will still be useful and those with crappy quads will be forced to buy new stuff. It's always this way. i7 920 was exactly the same when dual cores were still the norm and most people had crappy cheap quad cores with 4 threads.


----------



## David Fallaha (Nov 8, 2015)

so...as someone who has actually done what you're proposing thus actually knows what happens i'd strongly recommend you get the Xeon

why:
-you can also ignore what many commentators say here: endless games use 6+ cores now, including any Unreal Engine 4.0 game, just watch Taskmanager...
-6 real cores beat 8 virtual cores almost every time (i run with Hyperthreading off (it also lets me clock higher too))
-the Westmeres are amazing overclockers, i'm running @4.4ghz on air...

happy to share more of my experiences (i also have SSD RAID-0 with TRIM thanks to BIOS upgrades  ), good luck!



ShiBDiB said:


> They won't... it's rare to find a game that uses 4 threads now. It will still be a few years until 4 threads is the norm for gaming and by then poth of these cpu's will be outdated.


er no, try any Unreal Engine 4.0 game, Battlefield, CoD....


----------



## peche (Nov 9, 2015)

Klaasjansen211 said:


> Just to let you guys know: I overclocked my I7 920 further to 4,0 ghz on 1,35 volts! On 100% load it gets 85 degrees celcius, but I never get 100% load while gaming so ill check my temps with the upcoming games. The only thing I cant do, is get my ram on 1600 mhz.. I cant choose it manually and i can only choose 1400 or 1800, but the pc won't boot on 1800 mhz. The ram is 1,35v but the motherboard cant go lower than 1,5v.
> I also added 1 extra ram so it runs on triple channel  and a fresh windows 10 install + a ssd. The ssd speeds up the overal experience a lot! Didn't know everthing would becomes so fast.


excellent. SSD + triple channel memory will be a notable boost, about the temps, take a look on the case airflow, you must take out heat out the case, changing fans, re-doing a cable management, also replacing fans ... 

hope you enjoi pretty much just brave i7!

Regards,


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 9, 2015)

ShiBDiB said:


> They won't... it's rare to find a game that uses 4 threads now. It will still be a few years until 4 threads is the norm for gaming and by then poth of these cpu's will be outdated.



only cos i just posted this elsewhere and is seems relevant here
this is my outdated Xeon  X5670 playing the recently released Project Cars







GPU was flat out..... 1000/1425
http://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/b81/xfx-double-d-hd-7970-black-edition.html


----------



## David Fallaha (Nov 9, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> only cos i just posted this elsewhere and is seems relevant here
> this is my outdated Xeon  X5670 playing the recently released Project Cars
> 
> 
> ...



what's just as interesting tho are the threads in use -i've read and done plenty of benchmarking to now turn Hyperthreading OFF

only game i ever saw that understood the difference between real and threaded was GRID2


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 9, 2015)

my pc crunches with 12 threads 24/7, 
http://www.crunchersociety.net/



i suspend the work when i game, Project Cars utililizes what it will, whether those are cores or threads i dont know if task manager expresses it in that way. I would imagine that the game is turning H/T off.


----------



## David Fallaha (Nov 9, 2015)

here's infiltrator in DX11 mode (NOT DX12) -6 real cores under heavy use:







CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> my pc crunches with 12 threads 24/7,
> http://www.crunchersociety.net/
> 
> i suspend the work when i game, Project Cars utililizes what it will, whether those are cores or threads i dont know if task manager expresses it in that way. I would imagine that the game is turning H/T off.



it does indeed look like PCars might -unfortunately i found that almost all the emulation software i use isn't that clever

even randomly uses core 4 or 5 in isolation when it should use 1 or 2 to get the CPU to turbo(!)

also my stress test temps were just a little too high with hyperthreading -and scores actually lower...(IntelBurnTest)


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 9, 2015)

@David Fallaha

go top right of your screen, click on your name and fill in your specs.......   EDIT...please



any test that says "burn" or starts with "fur" frightens me


----------



## peche (Nov 9, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> @David Fallaha
> 
> go top right of your screen, click on your name and fill in your specs.......   EDIT...please
> 
> ...


agreed, 
start here!


----------



## David Fallaha (Nov 9, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:
			
		

> any test that says "burn" or starts with "fur" frightens me



lol, specs added, thanks for the tip

see what you make of this: for ultimate stability i test with Furmark AND IBT running together -i game so to me my system isn't stable if it can't handle GFX and CPU stress together, both cooling-wise and PSU

-you might well know a maxed Westmere@4.4 draws ~300W on it's own, i do now! still the best chip i've ever owned...


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 9, 2015)

I test for stability by crunching and i test for gaming stability by gaming. I just put 2/3 monitors on and watch everything.


----------



## PCGamerDR (Nov 9, 2015)

if the mail system worked in my country i'd send you a i7 960 i have that's sitting on a broken x58 sabertooth, i'd use the 960 instead of my 6800k if mobos weren't so damn expensive


----------



## peche (Nov 9, 2015)

David Fallaha said:


> post #77


quoting isn't strong with this one!

just a bad joke,


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 9, 2015)

Honestly to the OP, I wouldn't Jump to either platform, Id give 1 more year for AMD Zen and whatever Intel has at that point, or Go Skt 2011-3 5830


----------



## dorsetknob (Nov 9, 2015)

PCGamerDR said:


> if the mail system worked in my country i'd send you a i7 960 i have that's sitting on a broken x58 sabertooth, i'd use the 960 instead of my 6800k if mobos weren't so damn expensive



100 Euro's gets a X58 motherboard + postage location Germany


----------



## David Fallaha (Nov 9, 2015)

eidairaman1 said:


> Honestly to the OP, I wouldn't Jump to either platform, Id give 1 more year for AMD Zen and whatever Intel has at that point, or Go Skt 2011-3 5830



-except he's already on Socket-1366 so a six-core overclockable drop-in upgrade vs 5830 is a no-brainer IMHO

-do agree Zen or Skylake-E are the next 'must have' chips (but that's 1 year+ away)


----------



## peche (Nov 9, 2015)

David Fallaha said:


> Skylake-E


we dont even have seen broadwell -E  
also i may bet there will a "Skylake Refresh" Prior to Cannonlake


----------



## David Fallaha (Nov 9, 2015)

peche said:


> we dont even have seen broadwell -E
> also i may bet there will a "Skylake Refresh" Prior to Cannonlake



absolutely! i upgraded to a 980x once it became clear Skylake-E was years away...best decision i made

that said, i can't help but look forward to 10+cores@~5Ghz + Xpoint memory + 14nm GPU -will finally give me an excuse to get a 4K monitor or 3 ;-)


----------



## peche (Nov 9, 2015)

David Fallaha said:


> absolutely! i upgraded to a 980x once it became clear Skylake-E was years away...best decision i made
> 
> that said, i can't help but look forward to 10+cores@~5Ghz + Xpoint memory + 14nm GPU -will finally give me an excuse to get a 4K monitor or 3 ;-)


well i guess i will upgrade on 2 years more just if there will be any notable difference... i truly know that it wont be... Ivy Bridge stills what i want!

Regards,


----------



## Kanan (Nov 10, 2015)

Klaasjansen211 said:


> Just to let you guys know: I overclocked my I7 920 further to 4,0 ghz on 1,35 volts! On 100% load it gets 85 degrees celcius, but I never get 100% load while gaming so ill check my temps with the upcoming games. The only thing I cant do, is get my ram on 1600 mhz.. I cant choose it manually and i can only choose 1400 or 1800, but the pc won't boot on 1800 mhz. The ram is 1,35v but the motherboard cant go lower than 1,5v.
> I also added 1 extra ram so it runs on triple channel  and a fresh windows 10 install + a ssd. The ssd speeds up the overal experience a lot! Didn't know everthing would becomes so fast.


Nice upgrade, the graphics card is 100% utilized now, I guess. I need to tell you again, because someone is spreading false informations again: don't waste money for a Xeon as someone mentioned here again (and again and again), it's still the wrong upgrade. Save money for a new processor/mb/ram, will give you a lot more speed + and future proofing, than any LGA 1366 can, no matter how much overclocked they are. This is, when you actually need it, not necessarily now.

Games that use more than 4 CPUs, are a rarity, still. Some games do, these are only a few, like BF4, for example. And some games use all CPUs, but they don't have a 100% usage on all CPUs if you have a Hexacore or Octa for example, thus, it means they don't really *need* more than 4 CPUs - this is something some people falsely translate to "the game uses more than 4 CPUs" - it just changes the CPUs, but isn't using all of them at 100% or uses 6 cores at 20-40% which means a quadcore cpu can drive that game too. Until games really utilize more than 4 cores, a 6 or 8 core CPU isn't needed. Most games don't use a 6 core or 8 core processor, they use 2-4 cores and ignore the other cores, so upgrading from a i7 920 to a Xeon with 6 cores is a complete waste in the majority of the games, like 90-95% of all games, if not more. Some examples: BF4 uses more than 4 cores, right, but only if the CPU is weak you actually need more than 4 to play it right. A Phenom II X6 or a FX 6300 come to mind. A i7 920 OC should be okay, because the game should be GPU limited anyway, not CPU limited, with that processor. Crysis 3 only uses more than 4 cores, in 1 level (the Djungle), but a i5 still is faster than a FX 8350 in that particular level despite it having 8 cores vs 4 in the i5. The new Star Wars uses *up to* 8 cores afaik, but doesn't need them, because any good 4 core CPU is enough for that game, to be GPU limited. The important thing always is to have a strong quad core CPU now, because most games don't support more than that, or do so poorly (like Crysis 3). Basically the best gaming CPU right now is a Skylake i5 or i7, both have 4 cores. The near future of gaming industry is centered on 4 cores, even with DX12. It's uncertain when and if more than 4 cores are really needed to have a good gaming machine.

edit, PS.


----------



## David Fallaha (Nov 10, 2015)

Kanan said:


> Nice upgrade, the graphics card is 100% utilized now, I guess. I need to tell you again, because someone is spreading false informations again: don't waste money for a Xeon as someone mentioned here again (and again and again), it's still the wrong upgrade. Save money for a new processor/mb/ram, will give you a lot more speed + and future proofing, than any LGA 1366 can, no matter how much overclocked they are. This is, when you actually need it, not necessarily now.
> 
> Games that use more than 4 CPUs, are a rarity, still. Some games do, these are only a few, like BF4, for example. And some games use all CPUs, but they don't have a 100% usage on all CPUs if you have a Hexacore or Octa for example, thus, it means they don't really *need* more than 4 CPUs - this is something some people falsely translate to "the game uses more than 4 CPUs" - it just changes the CPUs, but isn't using all of them at 100% or uses 6 cores at 20-40% which means a quadcore cpu can drive that game too. Until games really utilize more than 4 cores, a 6 or 8 core CPU isn't needed. Most games don't use a 6 core or 8 core processor, they use 2-4 cores and ignore the other cores, so upgrading from a i7 920 to a Xeon with 6 cores is a complete waste in the majority of the games, like 90-95% of all games, if not more. Some examples: BF4 uses more than 4 cores, right, but only if the CPU is weak you actually need more than 4 to play it right. A Phenom II X6 or a FX 6300 come to mind. A i7 920 OC should be okay, because the game should be GPU limited anyway, not CPU limited, with that processor. Crysis 3 only uses more than 4 cores, in 1 level (the Djungle), but a i5 still is faster than a FX 8350 in that particular level despite it having 8 cores vs 4 in the i5. The new Star Wars uses *up to* 8 cores afaik, but doesn't need them, because any good 4 core CPU is enough for that game, to be GPU limited. The important thing always is to have a strong quad core CPU now, because most games don't support more than that, or do so poorly (like Crysis 3). Basically the best gaming CPU right now is a Skylake i5 or i7, both have 4 cores. The near future of gaming industry is centered on 4 cores, even with DX12. It's uncertain when and if more than 4 cores are really needed to have a good gaming machine.
> 
> edit, PS.



hmm soorry but so wrong at so many levels....

firstly, games console architecture determines games software: the proof: look at how Unreal dropped the raved Global Illumination from UE4.0 because PS4 and XBone couldn't do it -conversely both have 8 core chips and developers will use those extra cores

second, if you look at DX12 benchmarks it's real cores then HT threads but not clockspeed that determines throughput:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2900814/tested-directx-12s-potential-performance-leap-is-insane.html
http://www.gamespot.com/forums/pc-m...head-feature-test-early-dx12-perfor-31936719/

third, no one should make any comparisons with AMD '8 core' Bulldozer vs an Intel chip

fourth, if you do work with Photoshop or any other kind of rendering you'll see massive benefit

fifth and most of all, a simple $250 drop in upgrade that gives 1.5x cores and an extra ~1Ghz+ clock is nothing to be laughed at esp not when the chip will run cooler (and there's no real new chips on the horizon -thinking Skylake-E)


----------



## Toothless (Nov 10, 2015)

This thread is like watching a group of rabbits fight over a single leaf.

Not sure why everyone is like "omg get da xeon and ur op 4 yeeaaarrrssss" when honestly, the whole thing could have been avoided with an overclock and a SSD. I'm not sure if everyone is even taking a second to look at what SSDs can do in terms of helping a rig, and what even a mild overclock can pull up. Xeons are good, yes, but they're not the gods of the processors.


----------



## David Fallaha (Nov 10, 2015)

Toothless said:


> This thread is like watching a group of rabbits fight over a single leaf.
> 
> Not sure why everyone is like "omg get da xeon and ur op 4 yeeaaarrrssss" when honestly, the whole thing could have been avoided with an overclock and a SSD. I'm not sure if everyone is even taking a second to look at what SSDs can do in terms of helping a rig, and what even a mild overclock can pull up. Xeons are good, yes, but they're not the gods of the processors.



lol point taken -absolutely an SSD (or two  ) is essential -but to be fair the debate's perhaps more about cores and Westmeres than Xeons; they are such great chips -never forget the day i installed mine with FSB accidentally@175 which i only discovered when it booted@4.4Ghz(!)

suppose ultimately the whole debacle is a sad reminder about how much the CPU market has stalled


----------



## chlamchowder (Nov 10, 2015)

David Fallaha said:


> firstly, games console architecture determines games software: the proof: look at how Unreal dropped the raved Global Illumination from UE4.0 because PS4 and XBone couldn't do it -conversely both have 8 core chips and developers will use those extra cores


Console architecture does seem to drive game development. Both the PS4 and Xbox One have 8 core chips, but they use AMD's Jaguar architecture. Jaguar is more designed for low power and small die size than all out performance. They also run the Jaguar cores at low clock speeds (1.6 GHz for the PS4 and 1.75 for the Xbox One). Per-core IPC will be low compared to Haswell/Skylake. And of course, Haswell/Skylake are clocked much higher (>3.4 GHz, not counting overclocking).

Not sure how far off this is, but:

On a very high level, Jaguar is a dual-issue design, compared to Haswell/Skylake being a quad-issue design. So depending on code, Haswell/Skylake could be twice as fast.
Haswell/Skylake has other stuff to improve IPC, like a more complex branch predictor, larger register file, etc.
Haswell/Skylake can run at more than twice the clock speed, and go slightly further overclocked.
So, instruction throughput with four Haswell/Skylake cores could be more than that of eight Jaguar cores.



David Fallaha said:


> second, if you look at DX12 benchmarks it's real cores then HT threads but not clockspeed that determines throughput:


Here's my guess - lots of threads are being exposed to the OS scheduler, each with small tasks to complete. If rendering a frame requires a good number of threads to finish their individual tasks, the OS would end up context switching a lot as each thread finishes its task (yields the processor) or gets swapped out by a timer interrupt. With more cores, even virtual (HT) or partial (Bulldozer module) cores, the OS can dispatch more threads simultaneously, and each core's hardware schedulers can swap resources between two threads with a much smaller timeslice than the OS can. Smaller timeslice = more threads get to run on a core during a given time interval. And when HT swaps resources between threads, there's no context switch cost. So, with so many threads, that'd improve performance.

Of course, if threads are bottlenecked on cache capacity, HT will screw you over (but that doesn't seem to be happening).

Hopefully that makes some sense?

So, it might make sense to get more cores, but it's hard to say until DX12 games are actually released.


----------



## David Fallaha (Nov 10, 2015)

chlamchowder said:


> Console architecture does seem to drive game development. Both the PS4 and Xbox One have 8 core chips, but they use AMD's Jaguar architecture. Jaguar is more designed for low power and small die size than all out performance. They also run the Jaguar cores at low clock speeds (1.6 GHz for the PS4 and 1.75 for the Xbox One). Per-core IPC will be low compared to Haswell/Skylake. And of course, Haswell/Skylake are clocked much higher (>3.4 GHz, not counting overclocking).
> 
> Not sure how far off this is, but:
> 
> ...



it's an interesting debate, i have to be honest, you're pushing my understanding pretty hard but as you suggest, given console architecture, perhaps the emphasis is on developers simply using lots of threads more than carefully handling context switching?

i've found that with emulation software i get better performance with HT off -even multithreaded software just doesn't seem to be very thread aware if that's the right expression

-think i'll go back and benchmark Infiltrator again...


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 10, 2015)

Awaits Zen to see how it all plays out. Intels been sandbagging for 3+ years now.


----------



## Kanan (Nov 11, 2015)

David Fallaha said:


> hmm soorry but so wrong at so many levels....
> 
> firstly, games console architecture determines games software: the proof: look at how Unreal dropped the raved Global Illumination from UE4.0 because PS4 and XBone couldn't do it -conversely both have 8 core chips and developers will use those extra cores
> 
> ...


I'd say, THIS is wrong in so many ways.

First, what you say about game consoles is just a old speculation, thats already proven wrong. Consoles didn't change the way games are designed until now - I hoped for it too, but it just didn't happen. After the PS4 + XBone launched, new games and even console ports that launched on PC were at 4 core usage maximum, exceptions are exceptions and not overly important on this matter. You don't buy for 5% of the games, you want a PC that runs optimal. So 2-4 cores is the sweetspot -> you take a 4 core processor, possibly with HT, for a little headroom (minimum a i3). But mostly a i5 processor of Sandy Bridge (overclocked) or Haswell (like a i5 4460) will suffice.



> third, no one should make any comparisons with AMD '8 core' Bulldozer vs an Intel chip


Why, because you say it? No. A lot of people do, and its perfectly fine. The AMD processors must be compared to Intel processors, to exactly know, what is better. There is 1 game, or better said, 1 level in Crysis 3, a FX 8350 performs nice, because that level has a high core usage, in that level the FX 8350 was faster than a i7 - but that was only a bug, or it was a intended glitch to give AMD processors a edge over Intel CPUs. After it became public, they fixed it, and after that the FX 8350 was still fast, but only tied a i5, and the i7 was by far the fastest. Just a example for a comparison thats indeed interesting.



> fourth, if you do work with Photoshop or any other kind of rendering you'll see massive benefit


I strictly talk about games here and games have their sweetspot on 2-4 cores. I know that professional programs benefit from more cores, even the FX 8350 isn't so bad when you use these programs. But that's not the topic here.

And about your fifth point:
buying a new system with a processor that has X times the IPC of an old LGA1366 CPU, geting new features on mainboard like PCI-E 3.0/USB 3.0/3.1/m.2, having new hardware etc. are X profits, that are superior to any Xeon-upgrade he could do on that system, just in every way possible. Even the 4 core Sandy Bridge, thats just 1 generation ahead of these 6 core-Xeon CPUs, is faster. The 6 core Sandy destroys them. Stop arguing about a old CPU/platform, just because you like that particular thing. This seems more like a ego debate, because you got that CPU and want to defend it, rather than about objective facts. Accept that it is old. This debate is btw. over, afaik he already decided that he will not buy a Xeon, overclocked his i7 920 and bought a SSD + 3rd ram for triple channel - so don't waste your time.

PS. AMD in a way proved that many cores are a fail with their FX CPUs. Would more than 4 cores be good in games, a FX 8350 wouldn't have sucked. AMD took the "many core" approach, and they failed. Intel did the opposite, stayed with maximum 4 cores on their mainstream platform and just worked on efficiency and some IPC improvements, and succeded over AMD. Next year, AMD will follow in that path, the "many weak cores" approach is a dead end, like the Pentium 4 with its "extreme clock/low IPC" approach, that wasted way too much energy and still was slower than Athlon 64 (X2), with its higher IPC and lower clocks (higher efficiency). Intel, after that mistake, took the same approach. 



> So, instruction throughput with four Haswell/Skylake cores could be more than that of eight Jaguar cores.


It's way more. 8 weak cores with a clock of 1,6 GHz compared to 4 cores with higher IPC AND double the clock, just have about 50%-100% more performance, I guess (example I took the i5 4460 with 3,2 GHz non-turbo). Be sure of that. I saw a comparison on that a while ago, just don't have the link at hand now.


----------



## David Fallaha (Nov 11, 2015)

Kanan said:


> I'd say, THIS is wrong in so many ways.
> 
> Stop arguing about a old CPU/platform, just because you like that particular thing. This seems more like a ego debate



wow! getting rude now...perhaps you could back up your odd assertions with some evidence?


-'2-4 core gaming': you're only talking about initial console ports but with DX12 out for XBone and PC that's changing already, I've already posted here showing UE4.0 loading 6 cores in DX11...then there's GTAV, BF4, SW:BF -all multicore friendly

-'many cores are a fail': nonsense, 8-core AMDs CPUs are set to get massive boosts via DX12, i5 fine but an i3 is a foolish purchase:
https://community.amd.com/community...mance-in-new-3dmark-api-overhead-feature-test

-'PCI-E 3.0': if you think this has anything to do with graphics performance then you clearly don't know what you're talking about!:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/pci_express_scaling_game_performance_analysis_review,9.html

-ditto m.2 vs SSDs in RAID-0 -there's no real world benefit and there won't be til Intel releases X-point:










lastly, I upgraded to a 980x because my 920 was a rubbish overclocker -I was stuck@3.5Ghz and now i run @4.4 with 1.5x as many cores; this process took 15 minutes, plus slightly less again to plug in a second SamsungEVO; ultimately in <1/2hr i'd boosted my system hugely, no reinstalls, no rebuilds, just go


----------



## Kanan (Nov 11, 2015)

David Fallaha said:


> wow! getting rude now...perhaps you could back up your odd assertions with some evidence?


Don't wanted to be rude, it's just obvious that all LGA1366 users are only here to defend their system, and have next to zero arguments to back it up. This isn't about you or the others though, its about the OP and his system and whats best for him and others like him in the same situation.



> -'2-4 core gaming': you're only talking about initial console ports but with DX12 out for XBone and PC that's changing already, I've already posted here showing UE4.0 loading 6 cores in DX11...then there's GTAV, BF4, SW:BF -all multicore friendly
> 
> -'many cores are a fail': nonsense, 8-core AMDs CPUs are set to get massive boosts via DX12, i5 fine but an i3 is a foolish purchase:
> https://community.amd.com/community...mance-in-new-3dmark-api-overhead-feature-test


This is theoretical future. I talk about now and thats strict on topic. We don't talk about the vague future, and the AMD FX CPUs will still be bad with DX12. Your link is bad info, because it's a AMD PR thing, it's not to be trusted, and here's why:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/DirectX-12-Software-255525/Specials/Spiele-Benchmark-1172196/

Long story short: the game doesn't really scale with more than 4 cores.

Almost the same with StarWars:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Star-...950/Specials/Beta-Technik-Benchmarks-1173656/

It does scale with maximum 6 cores, but only if your cores are extremely low clocked (1,2 GHz for example). Sweetspot is rather 3-4 cores, like in BF4, I'd say. Well almost same engine, no surprises here.




> -'PCI-E 3.0': if you think this has anything to do with graphics performance then you clearly don't know what you're talking about!:
> http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/pci_express_scaling_game_performance_analysis_review,9.html


I know, I know. PCI-E 3.0 is still a +. For example you could use a 2nd card on 4x PCI-E 3.0 and you lose next to none perf, whereas with PCI-E 2.0 you lose a lot, like 5-10% depending on GPU.



> -ditto m.2 vs SSDs in RAID-0 -there's no real world benefit and there won't be til Intel releases X-point:


This isn't quite true, also. It depends. In games or normal usage, no. With special usage, like moving big files, yes. Still its a + to have that feature, you can't deny that.

And you forgot that the old X58 platform has no USB 3.0 / 3.1 which is a straight big fat minus. You can't deny that, too.



> lastly, I upgraded to a 980x because my 920 was a rubbish overclocker -I was stuck@3.5Ghz and now i run @4.4 with 1.5x as many cores; this process took 15 minutes, plus slightly less again to plug in a second SamsungEVO; ultimately in <1/2hr i'd boosted my system hugely, no reinstalls, no rebuilds, just go


Good upgrade, but depends what you paid for the 980X. But again, this topic isn't about you. Whats good for you isn't necassarily for him. The way I see it, a new system is worth a lot more to spent on, than that old X58 without USB 3.0 etc.

PS. In my other post I linked a video on youtube from PcPer about how many cores are really needed - you wanted some evidence? Then watch it, and don't say I didn't provide any proof.


----------



## David Fallaha (Nov 11, 2015)

Kanan said:


> Don't wanted to be rude, it's just obvious that all LGA1366 users are only here to defend their system, and have next to zero arguments to back it up. This isn't about you or the others though, its about the OP and his system and whats best for him and others like him in the same situation.
> 
> 
> This is theoretical future. I talk about now and thats strict on topic. We don't talk about the vague future, and the AMD FX CPUs will still be bad with DX12. Your link is bad info, because it's a AMD PR thing, it's not to be trusted, and here's why:
> ...



wow x2! even more rude...and full of bad assumptions -or sometimes just plain wrong:

-_'USB 3.0 / 3.1 which is a straight big fat minus. You can't deny that, too'_: er except i'm writing this on an X58 UD3R with USB3 on-board:



also my friend with a similar board has just installed this, USB-C 3.1 (before you ask he installed it into a PCIe slot):
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/asus-usb3.1-gen2-front-panel,news-51067.html

-_'I know, I know. PCI-E 3.0 is still a +'_: er complete nonsense! if this chap takes your (idiotic) upgrade recommendations and goes Z170 SLI/XF he only gets PCIe 3.0 x8 in both slots -which is exactly the same as his existing x58 which has already two true x16 slots@2.0...

-_'This isn't quite true, also. It depends. In games or normal usage, no. With special usage, like moving big files, yes. Still its a + to have that feature, you can't deny that.'_: er of course I can! do you move 4gig files around on one hard drive every day?!? of course not -real world usage depends on random 4K speeds and my RAID array is faster than some PCI-E/m.2 SSDs

anyway, again at heart the guy's asked about an upgrade, ie he's talking about the future -and the present is already 4-6 cores, not this '2-4 cores is the sweetspot' nonsense

your advice is 'spend £1500 buying a new quad-core rig and waste hours building it just as software's becoming mutlicore'

instead of ~£200 on a new chip with plenty left over for an SSD or three (and maybe a new GFX card)


----------



## hat (Nov 11, 2015)

x58 is like 7 years old now... sure it was a good platform, but come on man...


----------



## David Fallaha (Nov 11, 2015)

hat said:


> x58 is like 7 years old now... sure it was a good platform, but come on man...



i mostly agree but take a look at a stock Haswell getting beat by a stock i7 980x:
http://techreport.com/news/24886/haswell-compared-to-everything

-then factor in that most people like me overclock Gulftown by +1Ghz

even looking at the overall picture the benefits are minimal:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/cpu-charts-2015/compare,3694.html?prod[7418]=on&prod[7439]=on

show me something/anything real-world that makes it worth plunging blood, sweat and £1500+ into a new system now rather than waiting 12 months for Skylake-E?

a 4GHz+ overclocked CPU plus a high-end GFX card (or 2) and several SSDs is a better investment for any x58 owner right now -esp a gamer


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 11, 2015)

Heck id just get an extreme cpu. Up the memory. 1366 maybe considered antiquated but still has plenty of merrits. Just to ask Skylake E( will it be on 2011-3 or a new socket again?


----------



## chlamchowder (Nov 11, 2015)

David Fallaha said:


> i mostly agree but take a look at a stock Haswell getting beat by a stock i7 980x:
> http://techreport.com/news/24886/haswell-compared-to-everything


That's Cinebench, and image rendering can be parallelized really well. It scales very well with more cores. Since computing each pixel is independent, I can also see it scaling across multiple networked computers.

I don't think any game can show similar scaling with more cores.


David Fallaha said:


> -then factor in that most people like me overclock Gulftown by +1Ghz
> 
> even looking at the overall picture the benefits are minimal:
> http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/cpu-charts-2015/compare,3694.html?prod[7418]=on&prod[7439]=on


I agree, he should wait on it. I'd wait on it if I had a 1366 system, unless games are going 0 fps because of CPU bottlenecks (i.e., low GPU utilization). Sometimes I'm perplexed when people say a low-end processor is holding back a high end GPU, and the framerate is somewhere in the >100 fps range. Sure, the CPU's technically a bottleneck, but does it matter?



David Fallaha said:


> show me something/anything real-world that makes it worth plunging blood, sweat and £1500+ into a new system now rather than waiting 12 months for Skylake-E?
> 
> a 4GHz+ overclocked CPU plus a high-end GFX card (or 2) and several SSDs is a better investment for any x58 owner right now -esp a gamer


The biggest one is much lower power consumption. Those 1366 chips have 130 W TDPs at relatively low clock speeds. Overclocking will push power draw even higher. And performance doesn't scale linearly with clock speed. Other factors:

x58 uses SATA 2 (3 Gb/s), while Z97/Z170 support SATA 3 (6 Gb/s). Most modern SSDs, including budget models like the BX100, can saturate SATA 2.
x58 lacks USB 3 support. If you have USB 3 devices (card readers, fast USB flash drives, USB 3 hard drives, USB GbE, etc.), that could be worth looking at.
x58 is limited to PCI Express 2.0. Z97/Z170 has PCI Express 3.0.
Of those three, SATA 3 and USB 3 can be added via expansion cards (cheaper than a whole new board). PCIe 3.0 IMO doesn't matter at all.


----------



## hat (Nov 11, 2015)

David Fallaha said:


> i mostly agree but take a look at a stock Haswell getting beat by a stock i7 980x:
> http://techreport.com/news/24886/haswell-compared-to-everything
> 
> -then factor in that most people like me overclock Gulftown by +1Ghz
> ...


Well, 980x is a 6 core chip, and the 4770k is a 4 core chip. It's not _too_ surprising to see the 980x beat the 4770k in a well multithreaded application. Check out the single threaded score, 4770k wins. That said, I am kind of surprised the 4770k lost at multithreaded, considering the slightly higher clockspeed, and all the other improvements over the years (IPC improvements, etc).


----------



## Kanan (Nov 11, 2015)

> er except i'm writing this on an X58 UD3R with USB3 on-board:


Every X58 has USB 3.0? Afaik, no. But I confused it with SATA 3 anyway, so ... don't mind. And X58 has no SATA 3, which is a fat minus again. You deny that too?



> also my friend with a similar board has just installed this, USB-C 3.1 (before you ask he installed it into a PCIe slot):
> http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/asus-usb3.1-gen2-front-panel,news-51067.html


I'm not talking about extra cards here to compensate a missing feature. Why buy a expensive 1366 CPU and then extra cards to compensate for the missing features? No. Rather upgrade to a modern platform with a processor that is by far better, too. This is by far a better price to performance decision.



> er complete nonsense! if this chap takes your (idiotic) upgrade recommendations and goes Z170 SLI/XF he only gets PCIe 3.0 x8 in both slots -which is exactly the same as his existing x58 which has already two true x16 slots@2.0...


Nope, not nonsense. I was generally speaking about what upsides PCI-E 3.0 has over 2.0. And who is rude now? Only you. I never called you a idiot. And go back and read what I recommended: I first of all recommended Skylake OR Zen, because of the better CPU, not because of PCI-E 3.0 ... my recommendation is by far better than yours, which helps him next to zero, because he is GPU limited now anyway with his i7 920 at 4 GHz. He doesn't need a obsolete 6 core processor where 2-3 cores are rarely used on a old platform that lacks many good features.



> er of course I can! do you move 4gig files around on one hard drive every day?!? of course not -real world usage depends on random 4K speeds and my RAID array is faster than some PCI-E/m.2 SSDs


You can, and you are wrong. So you deny that m.2 is a feature? Then you are simply wrong. End of story.



> anyway, again at heart the guy's asked about an upgrade, ie he's talking about the future -and the present is already 4-6 cores, not this '2-4 cores is the sweetspot' nonsense


What you talk is nonsense - proof is brought by me and others and you are only trolling now, because you're out of arguments and simply wrong. 2-4 cores is the sweetspot, go and set your informations right. Read what I've written, check the youtube video I posted.



> your advice is 'spend £1500 buying a new quad-core rig and waste hours building it just as software's becoming mutlicore'


Nope, never said that. I told him to upgrade when his i7 920 is finally too slow, to a new system, in 2016. Not now. And I never said anything about 1500 pounds. Go and read again, what I wrote, start with page 1. Your ignorance is annoying.



> instead of ~£200 on a new chip with plenty left over for an SSD or three (and maybe a new GFX card)


Sorry, only misinformed spent 200€ or more on a old CPU on a old platform, thats basically nonsense, because 6 cores aren't anything good in most games, so basically he would spent 200€ on next to nothing. Go and set your informations straight. You are wrong and just defending your own decision to buy a 980X in the first place. You're talking about yourself here, not about him or others. Face it. 



> Well, 980x is a 6 core chip, and the 4770k is a 4 core chip. It's not _too_ surprising to see the 980x beat the 4770k in a well multithreaded application. Check out the single threaded score, 4770k wins. That said, I am kind of surprised the 4770k lost at multithreaded, considering the slightly higher clockspeed, and all the other improvements over the years (IPC improvements, etc).


Yes, but overall the 4770K is still faster, first of all in games, its far better than the 980X, and we're not talking about professional programs here, this is a derivation of the primary topic which is still gaming. If we're talking about professional programs, he should get a LGA 2011 with 5820K, by far better than to spent 100-200 bucks on an old system to get an old CPU thats hardly faster than any 4 core CPU since Sandy Bridge, let alone 4. Gen or 6. Gen.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 12, 2015)

200 bux is better than 1500+. Lets stop arguing shall we?


----------



## yanemte (Nov 12, 2015)

You should have stopped


----------



## revin (Nov 12, 2015)

Indeed Old School Rocks  
Still Lov'n Z68.......................Enjoy


----------



## peche (Nov 12, 2015)

revin said:


> Indeed Old School Rocks
> Still Lov'n Z68.......................Enjoy


+1 here...


----------



## Tomgang (Nov 13, 2015)

Old school is not always as bad as it may sound. Im very happy whit my old rig powered by a I7 920 and 2 GTX 970 in sli.

My system 3dmark firestrike scores.

single GTX 970







two GTX 970


----------



## Pill Monster (Nov 13, 2015)

AlexT said:


> Hi,
> First of all X5660 is a six core CPU and most games do not make use of more then 4 cores, so X5660 will provide about 66% of its performance for gaming. Another drawback for this CPU is the 1366 socket for witch is difficult to find a motherboard, not to mention those available are at very high prices.
> The 4670K CPU on the other hand is from newer generation, so better support and technologies, and in games it will make full use of its quad cores witch are at higher speed then those of X5660.
> For other things then gaming Xeon might be a better choise because of its 6 cores and better OC capabilities, but for games 4670k is the smarter and cheaper choise.


 DX11 games ported from console  use 8 threads.



RejZoR said:


> Apparently some have forgotten about the DX12's multithreading improvements. If games don't use more than 4 threads now, that doesn't mean they won't in next 6 months...


^Absolutely this



Kanan said:


> *Don't forget most games are sitting on 2-4 Threads no*w .. DX12 will change that to 4-6 at best. Example: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/DirectX-12-Software-255525/Specials/Spiele-Benchmark-1172196/
> But even with 6 cores fully used the Xeon is inferior, and by far. IPC of that old Xeon is just bad compared to Haswell. He should keep his i7 920 and upgrade later to Skylake or Zen (if its good), thats the best he can do, I think.


Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Every DX11 game ported from console runs at least 6 threads.  Look up deferred rendering in DX11
How many screenshots do you want me to post?



silentbogo said:


> It is not the multithreading that I'm worried about, but the actual CPU usage. Has anyone seen a game that comes even close to 100% CPU load on an i5 or i7?
> DX12 comes out, but it will take another year or two for DX12 titles to roll out, which is exactly the point at which the upgrade is reasonable. But even then there is no guarantee that a game optimised for whatevermany threads, but using only a fraction of the CPU resources will run significantly better on an Octacore with 20% load, than on a quad with HT and 40% load.


DX11 has full multithreading support, the threads don't have be rendered immediately, they can be deferred.



RejZoR said:


> You don't want CPU at 100% load. That means it'll be fully saturated and caches trashed. Besides, the most impirtant part of DX12 is multithreaded rendering which is basically the easiest to make and use and works across many graphic cards. The more specific DX12 features will take longer to be used if ever even used...


^This, again.



Kanan said:


> Don't upgrade on that platform. Save the money to switch to a new platform. It won't help to have a 12 thread processor,* even 6 is too much 99% of times. I can't stress this enough. 2-4 threads is the sweetspot in gaming today and tomorrow it will be 4-6 threads, most certainly not more than that in the near future.* And again, that platform is old. Use it as long as you can, but ultimately switch to Skylake or Zen, depending what suits at the time or is better.


Again, totally untrue. Find a ported game relased in the last 2 years running on 2 threads and post the results, this I have to see.  Then I'll post all the recent titles which run 8 threads, like GTAV.






Kanan said:


> So an i3 is garbage? Okay. 1st: I talk about gaming, not senseless experiments in a browser. 2nd: I said 2-4 threads, thats a big difference, and what I thought of was a i3, which is still good enough for gaming.


An i3 tanks in DX11 ever since BF3, find some Far Cry 3, Crysis, or BF3, BF4, GTA V  game benches with i3....



Kanan said:


> Every X58 has USB 3.0? Afaik, no. But I confused it with SATA 3 anyway, so ... don't mind. And X58 has no SATA 3, which is a fat minus again. You deny that too?


  X58 is the chipset you idiot of course they're all the same.



Kanan said:


> What you talk is nonsense - proof is brought by me and others and you are only trolling now, because you're out of arguments and simply wrong. 2-4 cores is the sweetspot, go and set your informations right. Read what I've written, check the youtube video I posted.


 Nobody gives 2 shits about your youtube vid.

What others? You're the one talking out his ass, not him.  
Since you strongly believe in empirical evidence, I'd like to see some links to all these new games u mention which only make use of 2 cores.  Last game I owned using 2 cores max was....hmmm probably Fallout New Vegas, maybe Skyrim. But guess what....they're DX 9.

I'll post as many screenshots as you want showing 8 cores under load, just ask,.
Second, Sabertooth doesn't have USB3 ?

That's strange because USB3 was a feature of X58 chipset. So I'd also like some links to the X58 chipset without USB3 please.

Anyone claiming games today use up 2-4 cores/threads max have never looked at threading or core use during a DX11 game. 

Single threaded engines bult on DX9. Every console port since BF3 makes use of multithreading, not a surprise as both PS4 and Xbone have 8 core CPU's.




Now, I'm waiting for that empirical evidence.

_PS. _Link to respected sources only please, your youtube vid is not a respected source.


----------



## peche (Nov 13, 2015)

Tomgang said:


> Old school is not always as bad as it may sound. Im very happy whit my old rig powered by a I7 920 and 2 GTX 970 in sli.


wise words!
i dont like SLI but old processors are pretty capable!



Pill Monster said:


> Yes an i3 is totally garbage for any gaming since BF3, witht he exeption of maybe Skyrim Try playing Far Cry 3 with an13, or Crysis, or BF3, BF4, GTA V ... Maybe if you have old DX9.
> 
> 
> All the people claiming games today use 2 or 4 cores have never looked at threading or core load during a DX11 game. Single threaded engines are DX9.


is not... let recognize that not all people have the enough money to get quad cores like i5 or i7's .... or more cores like AMD processors... i3 could bring a decent gaming experience on low / mid settings depending the game and also other hardware such SSD, Video card and sh*t....

i have done several builds with a pretty tight  budget on i3's that are pretty brave for gaming with the new owners! also new owners are ultra happy to get them !


Regards,


----------



## Pill Monster (Nov 13, 2015)

peche said:


> wise words!
> i dont like SLI but old processors are pretty capable!
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah it can run them and even do well in the likes of Gamebryo vs AMD (x87)... remember when everyone was comparing the i3 and X4? 
It's not a good choice for DX11 tho, 2cores + HT gives it 30% advantage over dual....

OK maybe garbage is a bit strong, (blame the newbie above  )  but they're not cut out for multithreading ...  What would u consider the min for decent experience?


PS.... I think half the prob with PD and CFX is no command list support, my opinion only ofc...prob talking crap.. lol


----------



## peche (Nov 13, 2015)

Pill Monster said:


> What would u consider the min for decent experience?


lad i have seen people gaming on old P4 and 2GB ram pretty happy world of warcraft ... they arent able to build something more... then gifting them 2GB moar ram and better hdd or vide card and how they enjoining their games?
seein people moving from p4 dual core to i3s and 4GB ram and geforce 9800gts for playing counterstrike and alienawarm .. with happy faces? thats smooth... 
thats priceless... and decent experience... 
not everyone could get bigass processors... and setups.. thats why i wouldn't tell humble i3's are crap...

Regards,


----------



## Pill Monster (Nov 13, 2015)

peche said:


> lad i have seen people gaming on old P4 and 2GB ram pretty happy world of warcraft ... they arent able to build something more... then gifting them 2GB moar ram and better hdd or vide card and how they enjoining their games?
> seein people moving from p4 dual core to i3s and 4GB ram and geforce 9800gts for playing counterstrike and alienawarm .. with happy faces? thats smooth...
> thats priceless... and decent experience...
> not everyone could get bigass processors... and setups.. thats why i wouldn't tell humble i3's are crap...
> ...


WoW is DX9 with x87 instruction, it's optimized for Intel.  Same as Gamebryo, Skyrim, and the others, all x87 DX9., all single threaded.

DX11 is different ballgame, the rules are reversed, cores win, not IPC.

That's why I said an i3 could run Gamebryo or DX9 titles, but for DX11 i3 is a terrible choice they use 4 -6 threads.... Prob not as bad as dual core Pentium though. lol
TBh I'd rather have a Nehalam 920 than i3..  It's semantics though because it depends where u set the min bar performance...everone is different .

Ps..I'm 41, but thanks..


----------



## Kanan (Nov 14, 2015)

> Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Every DX11 game ported from console runs at least 6 threads.  Look up deferred rendering in DX11
> How many screenshots do you want me to post?


And you didn't understand what I meant. All in all what I tried to say was, he is better off upgrading to a good IPC CPU with 4 cores than to an old CPU with 6 cores. You dispute this? Then you have no clue.



> Again, totally untrue. Find a ported game relased in the last 2 years running on 2 threads and post the results, this I have to see.  Then I'll post all the recent titles which run 8 threads, like GTAV.


I said 2-4 threads, thats a big difference, again you are unable to understand / read what I write and are quick to call me an idiot. Guess what, the idiot here is you. Ignorant fool.

Example: a i3 can perfectly run most of the games, has 2 cores and 4 threads. This totally draws (almost) everything I've said right. And every game - so most of the games - that don't make use of more than a 4 core CPU, are better off with an i3 than with an old i7 with 6 cores.



> An i3 tanks in DX11 ever since BF3, find some Far Cry 3, Crysis, or BF3, BF4, GTA V  game benches with i3....


I already did that, youre just pretty ignorant and ignored it.



> X58 is the chipset you idiot of course they're all the same.


The arrogant, idiotic and ignorant person here is you.



> Nobody gives 2 shits about your youtube vid.


Is this a argument? My answer: therefore I dont give a shit about you. Ignorant, clueless fool. You don't understand a thing.



> What others? You're the one talking out his ass, not him.


What I do and what not, you don't know, because you're a ignorant fool up to this point. All I've done to this point was defending my points. And I already had won this discussion, before that guy came here and again started it. It's foolish over the limit and a big waste of time.


> Since you strongly believe in empirical evidence, I'd like to see some links to all these new games u mention which only make use of 2 cores.  Last game I owned using 2 cores max was....hmmm probably Fallout New Vegas, maybe Skyrim. But guess what....they're DX 9.


Rofl, see the youtube link and go and do some research yourself, ignorant fool. I've seen a thousand times to this point that most games are perfectly played with an i5 and i3. 6 cores are only used in a few AAA titles like BF4 and GTA5, that are the absolute exception and not the rule. If you don't know this, you know nothing of the CPU situation today.



> I'll post as many screenshots as you want showing 8 cores under load, just ask,.
> Second, Sabertooth doesn't have USB3 ?


OMG, doesn't change a bit, that every i5 has only 4 cores and this is all that you need to play any game today, and NOT an 6 or 8 core CPU. And it doesn't change a bit that the best HE (the OP) could do is upgrade to a new system with high IPC, so that he has maximum efficiency and power in MOST OF THE GAMES that only use AND/OR NEED up to 4 cores/threads. You don't have a clue, Sir.



> Anyone claiming games today use up 2-4 cores/threads max have never looked at threading or core use during a DX11 game.


So "everyone" is just a person named by your name. And PCPer and thousands of other reviewers on the internet are idiots. Alright man. Must be interesting to live in your fantasy world.



> Every console port since BF3 makes use of multithreading, not a surprise as both PS4 and Xbone have 8 core CPU's.


1. No one here disputed that BF3 and other games use multithreading, here only was disputed whats the sweetspot on that, and thats still 2-4, totally irrelevant what you say, because I have evidence on this.
2. That you compare the weak CPUs of consoles to the ones in PC, shows me you have no clue whatsoever, but are quick to call me an idiot. The consoles only have 8 CPUs because they are weak CPUs with low IPC / core clock. That said, every game that runs on console, runs perfectly fine on an 2-4 core CPU on PC. That said, 6 core CPUs are still not needed. TPU has Guides for Highend PCs where only 4 Core i5 and i7 CPUs are used. Why haven't they included 6 core i7 then or "8 core AMD"? Because 4 core's are the sweetspot and skylake has the best IPC. But they are idiots too, right?

You're on blacklist now, have fun. 1st person, congratulations.



> _PS. _Link to respected sources only please, your youtube vid is not a respected source.


Re-PS. I don't care what you respect or not. And you are no "respected source" for me, either.


----------



## chlamchowder (Nov 14, 2015)

Pill Monster said:


> That's why I said an i3 could run Gamebryo or DX9 titles, but for DX11 i3 is a terrible choice they use 4 -6 threads.... Prob not as bad as dual core Pentium though. lol
> TBh I'd rather have a Nehalam 920 than i3..  It's semantics though because it depends where u set the min bar performance...everone is different .
> Ps..I'm 41, but thanks..



Interesting discussion. 

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Systems/Quad-Core-Gaming-Roundup-How-Much-CPU-Do-You-Really-Need is a good read. The Core i3 suffers in Civ Beyond Earth, Metro Last Light, and Thief compared to the i5/i7, when paired with a fast GPU. But it's still pushing ~60 fps in those cases, so whether it matters is debatable.  An extra 20-30 fps from an i5/i7 doesn't matter if you're on a 60 Hz monitor.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-intel-core-i3-6100-review is also interesting, since it brings in a highly clocked Skylake i3 and more modern games. Generally i7-6700K > i5-6600K > i3-6100 with the gap between the i5 and i3 getting a bit wide at times. But again, the i3 is always turning in playable framerates.

I think the i3 is still adequate for now, if just barely. But it's difficult to tell whether the 2 core w/HT design will become completely inadequate any time soon. The PS4 and Xbox One have been out for around two years now, and the i3 is still turning in playable framerates according to those benchmarks.

Making more wild guesses (i3 vs i5) - the i3's disadvantages (i.e., what could really hurt it vs. an i5):

Less cache, on all levels. With HT, threads share caches competitively. With two threads splitting the tiny-but-fast 256 KB L2 cache (and L1 caches), and four threads splitting a rather small 3 MB L3 cache, you'd end up going to main memory more often.
Branch prediction resources (branch target buffer for example) also shared competitively. If you have tons of branches/jumps, the i3's branch prediction could suffer, costing it quite a bit of IPC.
Shared reorder buffer/reservation station/execution units - hurts out of order execution capabilities, but shouldn't drop each thread below half single core speed
Less cache could explain why the i3 benefits so much from faster memory in Digital Foundry's test. If that's right, then the i5 won't be helped as much by faster memory since it has the largest cache-to-thread ratio. Unless, of course, the threads in question have horrible memory access patterns. In some games where the i3 comes really close to the i5/i7 with matched memory speeds, that could be the case. It's harder to tell for the rest.

I suppose the real answer is, it depends on the game (if you're chasing 60 fps or higher) for now. As for the future:

In favor of more cores:
PS4/Xbox One = 8 cores

In favor of faster/fewer cores
PS4/Xbox One have been out for two years and the i3 still isn't struggling that much

I guess only time will tell.


----------



## Pill Monster (Nov 14, 2015)

@Kanan. I'm still waiting for those screenshots.

PS.  X58 comes with Marvell SATA 3. Pays to have your facts together before picking an argument.


----------



## chlamchowder (Nov 15, 2015)

Pill Monster said:


> @Kanan. I'm still waiting for those screenshots.
> 
> PS.  X58 comes with Marvell SATA 3. Pays to have your facts together before picking an argument.


Not necessarily - X58 by itself does not come with SATA 3 support. Check out http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/prodbrief/x58-product-brief.pdf - it says SATA 3 Gb/s, which is SATA II. I have a X58 computer sitting next to me without any SATA III (6 Gb/s) capability.

However, it's possible for a X58 motherboard manufacturer to provide SATA III by adding separate controller chips (from Marvell, ASMedia, or whatever). It's the same as getting a SATA III PCIe card, but with the controller chip wired directly to some PCIe lanes instead of being removable in a PCIe slot).
The same also applies to USB 3 - that functionality can be provided by separate controller chips connected either via a PCIe slot or wired directly to PCIe lanes (i.e. built into the board).


----------



## Schmuckley (Nov 15, 2015)

Ain't no x5660 going into an MSI Haswell board.
OC'd x5660 probably still beat like..a 4670k multithreaded.
Not single.
Haswell's pretty good.
Here's an example:
X5660 @ 4.2 http://hwbot.org/submission/2544809_bradford1040_cinebench___r11.5_xeon_x5660_10.33_points
4670k @ 4.2:
Oh ..there was no 4.2,I'll just post my score @ like..5600Mhz:
http://hwbot.org/submission/2423689_schmuckley_cinebench___r11.5_core_i5_4670k_9.7_points
The x5660 wins in multicore apps.
Doesn't come up all that shy in single-thread, either.
Westmere-EP is pretty good.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 15, 2015)

yanemte said:


> You should have stopped


ignored


----------



## bdm2006_ss (Feb 28, 2016)

I was thinking about upgrading soon, and I did buy a new gpu/ssd, but after coming across this thread and many others decided to go with an x5660 over a new platform. I'm really ok with what I have, but for $70 I figured why not. I have a c0 stepping 920 so I'm hoping for better overclocking/less heat with the xeon.


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 28, 2016)

@ Kanan..Wall of text does not mean you're right.
Framerates are quite acceptable with OC'd 1366.
and multithread tasks go much better.

IMO..any "advances" in CPU architecture are all smoke and mirrors since Ivy Bridge.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 28, 2016)

In my opinion the best way to go is Xeon e5640......4c /8 th .........good for 4.0+ ghz 24/7
http://ark.intel.com/products/47923/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5640-12M-Cache-2_66-GHz-5_86-GTs-Intel-QPI

great for gaming
http://hwbot.org/submission/3063152_capslockstuck_cinebench___r15_xeon_e5640_656_cb/

and cheap as chips, you can find them for £20.00


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 28, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> In my opinion the best way to go is Xeon e5640......4c /8 th .........good for 4.0+ ghz 24/7
> http://ark.intel.com/products/47923/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5640-12M-Cache-2_66-GHz-5_86-GTs-Intel-QPI
> 
> great for gaming
> ...


I'm going to to disagree because I think that is still Bloomfield,no? 45nm?
nm..it's 32 nm. 
Interesting! 
and yes..This conversation is happening in 2016.


----------



## silentbogo (Feb 28, 2016)

bdm2006_ss said:


> I was thinking about upgrading soon, and I did buy a new gpu/ssd, but after coming across this thread and many others decided to go with an x5660 over a new platform. I'm really ok with what I have, but for $70 I figured why not. I have a c0 stepping 920 so I'm hoping for better overclocking/less heat with the xeon.


Get a 32nm Xeon (Westmere E or X series). Those are the most bad-ass upgrades for LGA1366. I am currently running an X5650 in my main rig and so far I only have positive tings to say. The only downfall is absent USB3.0 and SATA-III for some boards (not yours though ).

The overclock is awesome. Performance is also excellent.
A hexacore E5649 falls within your price category, but if you have some extra cash or time for eBay auctions, then you should definitely look for X5650 or higher.

Something simpler, like quad-core X5667 can be found for less than $40:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-Xeon-...sh=item1eac28f3db:g:CoMAAOSwoydWqw5g#viTabs_0
It should nicely overclock to >4GHz and give you more room for RAM OC (if you are using newer and faster DDR3 modules), while consuming significantly less power and generating less heat.

Here are also my bragging records (@CAPSLOCKSTUCK beat it recently by 13pts):
http://hwbot.org/submission/3037260_silentbogo_cinebench___r15_xeon_x5650_1002_cb

After upgrading to Win10 I was able to tweak my system to pass Cinebench R15 @4.7GHz, but the actual score was lower than in Win7 @ 4.4GHz.
System is "Chinese-Great-Wall-stable" at 4.2GHz on air, but is currently downclocked to 3.2GHz (1.0V CPU vCore) to save some $$$ on electricity bill and prolong my UPS operational lifetime.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 28, 2016)

Schmuckley said:


> I'm going to to disagree because I think that is still Bloomfield,no? 45nm?
> nm..it's 32 nm.



Im pretty sure its Westmere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...tmere-EP.22_.2832_nm.29_Efficient_Performance

I have owned a few 1366 Xeons. Best value 4c/8th is E5640.....best value 6c/12 th is X5650

That is only my opinion though, i currently use a X5670 in my main pc and 2 x E5640 in my 2 P crunching system 





I bought the E5620 for £ 12.00, it is now in a friends gamer running at 3.8ghz 4c/8th


----------



## monim1 (Feb 28, 2016)

Well, getting the i7-4770k over the i5-4670k won't really net you any performance gains while gaming. If you're going to be running many programs while gaming, then maybe you could benefit - but I don't think you need to go any higher. It's a pity you can't really overclock your i7-920 though - that thing totally would've worked for today's games.

Because you're gaming at 1440p, getting the 780 makes more sense then. I still think it's a little over priced, but you'll definitely notice a difference. Or you could wait a while and and another 7970 in CF. If you're concerned about power/heat/noise - you'll want to stay away from the 2nd option.

As for the ram, just get any 2x4gb 1600mhz ram sticks/kit. If you don't plan on doing anything fancy with ram timings, just get a set that's highly rated and not that expensive. Corsair vengeance, g-skill ares or sniper or ripjaws, kingston hyperx are all good models.


----------



## Kanan (Feb 28, 2016)

You guys are funny. This discussion is over for MONTHS (nice necro), the OP isn't coming back / didn't answer since pages/months. But have fun wasting your time (I'll stay with my opinion btw, to be nostalgic about a CPU is maybe fun, but reality is something else).


----------



## bdm2006_ss (Feb 28, 2016)

silentbogo said:


> Get a 32nm Xeon (Westmere E or X series). Those are the most bad-ass upgrades for LGA1366. I am currently running an X5650 in my main rig and so far I only have positive tings to say. The only downfall is absent USB3.0 and SATA-III for some boards (not yours though ).
> 
> The overclock is awesome. Performance is also excellent.
> A hexacore E5649 falls within your price category, but if you have some extra cash or time for eBay auctions, then you should definitely look for X5650 or higher.
> ...




Thanks for the advice. I've actually already ordered a x5660 that I found on ebay for 79.95, should be here next week hopefully. For the ram, a couple years ago or so one of my sticks died so I've been running in dual channel since. I ordered another 12GB triple channel kit so after that I should be good to go.


----------



## OneMoar (Feb 29, 2016)

oi make your own threads people we got 3 pages of thread jacking going on here


----------

