• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Xeon Owners Club

Dr. Dro said:
Hello friends, I want your input before I make a decision. As you know, Windows is kind of going to hell in a handbasket lately and with its future being uncertain, I'm feeling a little unsafe regarding having only a latest generation computer running the latest version of Windows 10/11 available to me. So, with the objective of keeping a fully functional Windows 7 system around, I decided to dig out the parts from my drawer and start a "new" build. This is to be used as a general purpose desktop; media consumption, light gaming, some casual video encoding. It's basically what I do with my PC but with lower expectations.

I own a Gigabyte X99 Ultra Gaming motherboard currently equipped with a 18-core Xeon E5-4669 v3 CPU. My complaint is that the clock speeds on this processor really suffer. It wasn't as bad when I first acquired it back in 2017 or so, but nowadays apps require a level of single thread well beyond what it can do - even after pulling the turbo unlock trick it doesn't do more than 2.9 GHz (or 2.4 GHz if AVX is enabled, this is a hardcoded offset), it's woefully slow. It will be paired with the RAM kit that used to be part of my old 5950X system and a GTX 1070 Ti GPU that I keep as a backup/spare card.

So, I've decided to search for a new processor. I've set a small budget towards it and would prefer it to feature an upgrade to Broadwell, I did some research and the options I have are essentially as follows:

E5-1650 v4 (6-core. identical to Core i7-6850K but locked, 3.6 base, ~4.0 turbo) ~$30
E5-2697A v4 (16-core, 2.6 base, ~3.6 turbo) ~$33

-or Haswell options-

E5-2699 v3 (it is identical to the processor I currently have, but up to 700 MHz faster, so up to 3.6 or so - likely subject to the same AVX offset issue, though) ~$57
Core i7-5960X (8-core unlocked, but also Haswell, and easily the one that will achieve the highest clocks) ~$62

My question is, with this objective in mind, which one of these would you personally pick? I'm currently leaning towards the 2697A v4, it seems the most balanced option here, it is cheap, I get the Broadwell upgrade (slightly higher IPC, TSX support), the extra clock frequency I want while losing two cores, and it looks like ten extra cores might as well outweigh losing 400 MHz over the 1650 v4, even with the topology concerns.

One last request if a mod sees this, can you check if I'm "shadowbanned" from this thread (if such a thing exists)? I seem to recall that a couple of years ago when I was still a greenhorn on the forum I had a little of an argument here, and one or two of my posts were flagged as low-quality. I haven't received notifications about this thread ever since.
Click to expand...
I'd say look at the 1680v4 if it could be an option.
0beb67f90c.png
 
Toothless said:
I'd say look at the 1680v4 if it could be an option.
0beb67f90c.png
Click to expand...

I looked it up and there is one available, but its almost twice as expensive as the 2697A v4. I'm not sure it's worth it
 
xtreemchaos said:
have you checked aliexpress Intel Xeon E5 2697A V4 2697AV4 2.6GHz 16-Core 32-Thread LGA 2011-3 processor - AliExpress
Click to expand...

Yeah, that one you linked is the same price I would be paying locally for the 2697A. The 2697 (18-core version) already exceeds the 50 USD value for import, so past that threshold prices double because taxes go from ~10 to 96%. Buying from China is not advantageous unless I can get an ES of the E5-2699 v4 for less than $50, and that's not happening it seems. The 1650 v4 is cheaper on Aliexpress, but the 1680 is about 3 dollars above the $50 limit and thus doubles the price due to the tax policy.

What I need to figure out is the median clock speed between the 2697A and the 1650, the 1650 obviously has at least 1 GHz higher nominal clock, and essentially being a i7-6850K it's going to be a pretty good fit for what I am doing. Decisions, decisions... I just don't want to fall into the same trap I am trying to get out of again.

If the 2697A can run at close to 3.6 GHz constantly, that sounds like a great idea to me - if it cannot, I should probably opt for the 1650, after all I already have the 4669 v3 on hand if I ever need to swap it out for whatever reason. No idea, really.
 
Ok mate, didn't think of import taxes we don't have to pay here in the UK. i run a 2699v3 cracking cpu its fast at 3.6 turbo mod and cool too.
 
xtreemchaos said:
Ok mate, didn't think of import taxes we don't have to pay here in the UK. i run a 2699v3 cracking cpu its fast at 3.6 turbo mod and cool too.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have the quad-socket version (the 4669 v3), it's the same CPU, but its clock speed is way lower. Does your chip drop by 500 MHz once you run any AVX code on it? (So, ~3.1 GHz).
 
it runs CB which i think is AVX @3.2 all core.
 
xtreemchaos said:
it runs CB which i think is AVX @3.2 all core.
Click to expand...

I see, so there is an AVX offset as well. Sadly you cannot disable that offset, even though CPU is well within the CPU power spec. Mine drops from 2.9 to 2.4, which is just too low. I can disable AVX but that breaks more programs than ever.

Looks like the 1650 v4 might be the way to go for me. It should be powerful enough for what I need it to do, and its clock speed is very healthy.
 
my 7700k is the same with CB if i have it 4.5ghz it runs 4.2 ghz with AVX.
 
xtreemchaos said:
my 7700k is the same with CB if i have it 4.5ghz it runs 4.2 ghz with AVX.
Click to expand...

I want a CPU that has a sufficient number of execution units (so 6+ cores) that can sustain a high clock speed. I just need to research if there is an offset applying to the E5-1600 v4 series, if there is one, I will likely order the 2697A. I looked some CPU-Z validations and looks like those average 3.1 all-core.

I had a 1607 v4, but that chip is a case apart - it's really just 3.1 with no turbo support whatsoever, and being a quad core, it was quite slow. The 1650 v4 seems a 1:1 processor to the 6850K in every regard.
 
its the same with cpuz .3.2 while running its showing 3.6 in Task m but the run had finnished before i took the ss.
2699 cpuz.jpg
 
xtreemchaos said:
its the same with cpuz .3.2 while running its showing 3.6 in Task m but the run had finnished before i took the ss.
View attachment 351544
Click to expand...

I see, those scores are not much higher than what I get with my current chip, but just about what I'd expect from the nominal clock speed increase. That's good, but it shows buying the 2699 v3 would make no sense whatsoever from where I'm standing.

I'll see. There is no rush, after all. I'll probably be assembling it back together sometime tonight.
 
it will do higher its just i've quite a bit running in the background if i turned stuff off it would be near 8000.
 
xtreemchaos said:
my 7700k is the same with CB if i have it 4.5ghz it runs 4.2 ghz with AVX.
Click to expand...
IINM the offset can be changed with 7700k while the e5-2xxx-v3 is a table calculated knee jerk response. You could try the CPU-Z avx2 bench to see how your avx/fma ratio looks on the xeon.

@Dr. Dro The 1680-v3 can be overclocked but not the 1680-v4 so if you don't mind pushing it the v3 should wipe the floor with the v4 except for power efficiency. However the 1680-v3 is something like $60 so maybe the 1660-v3 which is around $20-$30 and also overclockable so should also beat the 1680-v4. Also you get to be able to use higher DRAM clocks which for 2xxxx-v3 DDR4 are limited to 2133MT/s plus any small BCLK OC. Don't know if 8 cores is enough for you and I've never owned those myself, just going by other peoples results.
 
:D:D said:
IINM the offset can be changed with 7700k while the e5-2xxx-v3 is a table calculated knee jerk response. You could try the CPU-Z avx2 bench to see how your avx/fma ratio looks on the xeon.

@Dr. Dro The 1680-v3 can be overclocked but not the 1680-v4 so if you don't mind pushing it the v3 should wipe the floor with the v4 except for power efficiency. However the 1680-v3 is something like $60 so maybe the 1660-v3 which is around $20-$30 and also overclockable so should also beat the 1680-v4. Also you get to be able to use higher DRAM clocks which for 2xxxx-v3 DDR4 are limited to 2133MT/s plus any small BCLK OC. Don't know if 8 cores is enough for you and I've never owned those myself, just going by other peoples results.
Click to expand...

I am aware of the E5-1600 v3 series being unlocked, it's an option I suppose. The 1680 v3 should be identical to the i7-5960X. I'd rather have a Broadwell chip, but that can work. I'll be doing some research later tonight to see if it's worth it.

8 cores is enough yes, it's just to be a side machine with the intent of running Windows 7.

New update, it merged my post apparently:

I missed the E5-2697A v4, someone purchased it today while I was sleeping. Think I'll just keep this 4669 v3 CPU for a while longer and keep on the lookout for a bargain on the 2696 or 2699 v4. This was just from parts I had around, case unfortunately does not fit the 360mm AIO i have so I've installed this tiny one. It's enough anyway.

If I see a 2699 v4 for ~$120, I'll look into purchasing it.

IMG_0291.jpeg
 
Last edited:
E5-2699v4 is a better choice than E5-2697Av4 and E5-1680v3 or v4.
 
uco73 said:
E5-2699v4 is a better choice than E5-2697Av4 and E5-1680v3 or v4.
Click to expand...

It is, but it is also the most expensive. They cost $180 on average, at that point you can get a budget AM4 setup going that's gonna run circles on the Xeon. It's not worth it, even if you have something like a R5E10 to install it on.
 
uco73 said:
E5-2699v4 is a better choice than E5-2697Av4 and E5-1680v3 or v4.
Click to expand...
That depends on whether or not more cores would be of benefit rather then highers clocks. The higher clock 8cores strike the best balance for the X99 platform where gaming and most consumer lever tasks are considered. Power-user type tasks though, yes more cores. For more cores, the 10C/20T 2689V4 is a great value currently.
 
lexluthermiester said:
For more cores, the 10C/20T 2689V4 is a great value currently
Click to expand...
You're right. My processor has more cores than I will ever need, as does my amount of memory. I don't do anything on my computer except surf the internet, watch movies and play video games. However, I got my computer for incredibly little money (a complete computer with graphics and a monitor for about 600 euros), and the graphics themselves cost much more at that time. Today's games still require no more than 4 cores and 8 threads, and no more than 16GB of memory (maybe some require more). The only thing is that today's game titles need a little better graphics.
 
Sora said:
nice joke, quite a few games released this and last year scale right up to 16 cores.
Click to expand...

Yeah, most games will benefit from 8 to 16 cores nowadays. Not much more, though. There's still a fairly strong reliance on single threaded IPC, which is where the Xeons fall utterly short. Even if you get one like the 1650 v4, you're at best getting i7-6850K performance out of it (since it's the same chip anyway), and that is no longer competitive.
 
lexluthermiester said:
In reality, many games made within the last 7 or 8 years will scale to an 8core/16thread CPU by default.
Click to expand...
That the thing about a few years old games from 2000 to 2010 it don't require that many cores it not like we be playing solitaire on 16 cores cpu is unnecessary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top