DrDork posted:Stock speeds, it's not, and unless you're doing some heavily multi-threaded work, will lose hands down in pretty much every other performance metric. The important part is that k sitting on the end of the number, meaning it's overclockable. You can reasonably expect the vast majority of 5820k's to be able to overclock to 4.5GHz without much effort. Similarly, you can expect to be able to overclock a 6700k to 4.7GHz. So the 6700k is still slightly faster in single-core performance, but not by much. The 5820k also has an extra 1/2MB of cache for each core, but has two extra physical cores, which is always nice to have. As Paul discussed, they have more PCIe lanes enabled, which doesn't matter much if you only ever plan on a single GPU, but if you were considering multi-GPU at any point, it's nice to have. Price-wise they're generally about the same. The extra lanes are also nice if you want to go with a high speed SSD, either m.2 or PCIe based, though for most consumers those are way overkill and the extra capacity you could get on a slower SSD would be a better use of the money.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:17 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Skylake is limited to 16+4 (I think it has 4 extra through the PCH for M.2). Skylake is 16 from the CPU (same as Haswell). Skylake's improvement is that all of the PCI-E lanes on the PCH are also 3.0 and the DMI connection between the CPU and the PCH has been been updated from 2.0 to 3.0, effectively doubling the bandwidth for devices connected to the PCH.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 18:04
|
|
DrDork posted:Stock speeds, it's not, and unless you're doing some heavily multi-threaded work, will lose hands down in pretty much every other performance metric. The important part is that k sitting on the end of the number, meaning it's overclockable. You can reasonably expect the vast majority of 5820k's to be able to overclock to 4.5GHz without much effort. Similarly, you can expect to be able to overclock a 6700k to 4.7GHz. So the 6700k is still slightly faster in single-core performance, but not by much. The 5820k also has an extra 1/2MB of cache for each core, but has two extra physical cores, which is always nice to have. As Paul discussed, they have more PCIe lanes enabled, which doesn't matter much if you only ever plan on a single GPU, but if you were considering multi-GPU at any point, it's nice to have. Price-wise they're generally about the same. This is the part I was failing to grasp, this makes a lot more sense now, thank you. The 5820k seems a lot more appealing now, just gotta shop for a decent price on the mobo.
|
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
1st_Panzer_Div. posted:This is the part I was failing to grasp, this makes a lot more sense now, thank you. The 5820k seems a lot more appealing now, just gotta shop for a decent price on the mobo. Newer-revision (but not new) X99 boards are coming out soon for Broadwell-E, which might lower the prices of the older boards, most/all of which are getting BIOS updates to allow for the newer chips, which use the same socket. They might have USB 3.1 chips added on or a second M.2 slot, but otherwise they'll be the same.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Very true. A lot of the later-model X99 boards already have USB 3.1, helpfully, and I'm not sure how much of a consumer market there is for multiple M.2 slots. I mean, I guess if price is really no object, but I'd probably prefer to have that second 980Ti.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Digital foundry did a thing on the 5820k vs. 6700k. Even though the 6700k wins, the 5820k is still great. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocwwaVGUFtk Edit: Also don't you stream? The extra cores will be a godsend if you do.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
I'm tempted hard to replace my i5-4670K (that is an absolute shitheap for overclocking, it can only hit 4.1GHz with any kind of reasonable stability) with a pair of cheap SB-E chips off of eBay and a 2P motherboard. Most of what I do (compiling huge projects and recently 4K video editing) is very multi-core friendly, and it's not like it'd be a huge enough hit to single threaded performance that it'd be actively unpleasant, right? I mean, I could go with discounted but far more expensive Haswell-Es, but that's not got the same appeal of getting 2 processors, a motherboard, and a ton of RAM for like $600.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
If you can foot an 850W or more G2/P2 or equivalent PSU and really good cooling for those chips I don't see why not.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:If you can foot an 850W or more G2/P2 or equivalent PSU and really good cooling for those chips I don't see why not. I don't think the locked -E series are very good value for most people. The Sandybridge-era chips tend to be clocked much lower from what I remember, and I think an 8-core Haswell/Skylake i7 probably is going to be pretty close in peak performance while also being much more pleasant to use in the more common use-cases, not to mention considerably better in power consumption. Keep an eye on those clock rates when you're considering this.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:I'm tempted hard to replace my i5-4670K (that is an absolute shitheap for overclocking, it can only hit 4.1GHz with any kind of reasonable stability) with a pair of cheap SB-E chips off of eBay and a 2P motherboard. Most of what I do (compiling huge projects and recently 4K video editing) is very multi-core friendly, and it's not like it'd be a huge enough hit to single threaded performance that it'd be actively unpleasant, right? I mean, I could go with discounted but far more expensive Haswell-Es, but that's not got the same appeal of getting 2 processors, a motherboard, and a ton of RAM for like $600. It's a very appealing idea. Here's a decent in-depth video with one 8 core Xeon and some relevant benchmarks vs Skylake and so on. Spoiler: SB-E still kicks rear end, even multi locked, in the right applications. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 14:55 on May 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
The disagreement is why I'm asking in here. Half of the people say that it's amazing, and the other half say that it's awful.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:The disagreement is why I'm asking in here. Half of the people say that it's amazing, and the other half say that it's awful. It all depends on the task and the clock rate of your particular processor (whether overclocked or not). If your task spreads across multiple threads really well, or likes the extra cache, or you have an unlocked i7 that is pushed up to the same clockrate as the consumer chips, then the -E chips win. If you have something that doesn't thread well on a Xeon chip then the consumer chips are going to do better since they boost way above what a Xeon will do and the extra threads don't help. Remember: at the end of the day Haswell-E is still the same architecture as consumer Haswell, and Xeon-Es are just binned for low power leakage and clocked down for efficiency, like Xeons and S/T series Haswell chips. Clock rates, TDP-based throttling, and the task in question determine performance. If you go back to earlier chips, you lose some IPC and quite a bit of power efficiency, of course. In some cases the extra 200mhz or so of OC headroom and the small IPC improvements in Skylake do give the i7-6700K a small edge over the 5820K in some tasks, particularly ones that don't thread well. In other ones, the extra 4 threads on the 5820K win. Going back to a pair of Sandy Bridge Xeon-Es is an even more extreme tradeoff, you're up to 32 threads, but no overclocking, a moderate amount of IPC loss, and now you're using 2 separate processors which some tasks really don't like. It's not going to be optimal for gaming, and even some productivity tasks aren't going to like being spread across two processors, but compiling lots of small files is embarrassingly parallel and will be fine. Gaming with both CPUs active may actually hurt - if you do game on it, turn one off in BIOS. In particular though a lot of places will bench the unlocked -E processors at stock clocks, which is a dumb way to do it since they have very low stock clocks compared to the equivalent consumer chips, but will overclock almost as far as the 4790K or 6700K (subject to the normal silicon lottery of course). Anyone who is running those chips for gaming is overclocking the poo poo out of them. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:13 on May 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Gaming with both CPUs active may actually hurt - if you do game on it, turn one off in BIOS. Also, something to be aware about overclocking a 5820K is the considerable increase in power draw. Idle seems to increase by up to 40W, and under load up to 120W (seen benchmarks were system power consumption under load went from ~220W to ~340W), depending how much you overclock. Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 00:40 on May 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Yeah, as I said, overclocking a 5820k is gonna tax your heatsink. I've been completely fine with my Corsair H110 (to the point where even under max load I've got the fans running silent at about 40%), but if you've got some dinky little air cooler and think that'll be fine...it won't be. You can shave a chunk of that power off by working down the voltage, though. Most of the guides recommend putting it to 1.35v and working up from there, but I was able to get a stable 4.5GHz at 1.289v. It's not a huge difference, but it helps.
DrDork fucked around with this message at 01:35 on May 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
I'm still running mine at stock. Games work fine and I get low power usage. Despite being a six core CPU, going from my Sandy Bridge i7-2600 to this Haswell-E was very noticable on the power bill in regards letting it idle 24/7. Gonna go with 4GHz eventually. I have a Dark Rock 3 on it, so it can sink some watts.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Curious about why the idle power use increases - can't you change multipliers / volts / maximum cores in turbo mode separately?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
No idea, it's what I've seen in multiple reviews. I don't get it either, I'd think that at idle it'd be running at lowest clock and voltage regardless of an overclock. I never really overclocked, so I don't know.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
wipeout posted:Curious about why the idle power use increases - can't you change multipliers / volts / maximum cores in turbo mode separately?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:You'd think Windows is NUMA aware and tries to schedule threads and allocate memory on one CPU as good as it can. Whoa, are people doing x86 NUMA on consumer systems now?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Whoa, are people doing x86 NUMA on consumer systems now? Nope, but you can get 8 core Sandy Bridge CPUs on eBay for $70 all day long, so there's lots of people who would normally not consider a dual-socket workstation build doing it just because it's the same price as doing a 6700K build to get 16 physical Sandy Bridge cores.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Whoa, are people doing x86 NUMA on consumer systems now? On workstation systems. Including GPGPU compute.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Whoa, are people doing x86 NUMA on consumer systems now? --edit: Nevermind, I misunderstood. Regardless of that, it'll probably be cheaper to go with a 2S board and stick two 5820K-ish Xeons into them, than to get one of the upcoming Broadwell 10-core ones (if that unicorn is actually going to exist). And still would get you two more cores. Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 14:16 on May 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 14:11
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Uh, aren't multi-socket systems, where every CPU has their own memory bus, kind of NUMA? The 10-core one was already confirmed via a leak directly from Intel, though I expect it to be at least $1500 for one of them.
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Uh, aren't multi-socket systems, where every CPU has their own memory bus, kind of NUMA? I'm having a hard time finding a 5820K-ish Xeon E5 in the v4 lineup, and the v3s would only be slower and more expensive: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10158/the-intel-xeon-e5-v4-review/6 The closest I see by specs is the E5-2643 v4, which is 100mhz base clock faster than a 5820K but costs $1500. The ~$400 2620 v4 has 8 cores but is only 2.1 GHz. The HEDT CPUs actually look like a very good value.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
There's also the "Schrodinger's Unlocked" E5-1600 series that's been around since Ivy Bridge-EP for some reason.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:I'm having a hard time finding a 5820K-ish Xeon E5 in the v4 lineup, and the v3s would only be slower and more expensive: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10158/the-intel-xeon-e5-v4-review/6
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
The 10 core has already been on ebay so its probably legit lol http://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-i7-6950X-LGA2011-3-10C-20T-3GHz-25MB-L3-140W-for-X99-chipset-/111980028756?_ul=AR
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Oh my mistake then. I'd figured that the Xeon line would have some close equivalents. I guess the QPI stuff makes it expensive. I thought "you need the Xeon featureset? gently caress you pay me" made it expensive. If you need dual socket, ECC, etc where are you going to go? Exactly, nowhere. So pay up or scrounge some old poo poo from ebay.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Oh my mistake then. I'd figured that the Xeon line would have some close equivalents. I guess the QPI stuff makes it expensive. NihilismNow posted:I thought "you need the Xeon featureset? gently caress you pay me" made it expensive. Yeah, QPI is the replacement for front side bus since Bloomfield/Nehalem in late 2008 and present in consumer chips as well. Xeon is expensive for the same reason that Windows Enterprise editions are expensive, it has features that businesses want and will pay a premium for and there's no easy alternative. On the topic of old eBay hardware, does anyone know if the wattage readout for the proc in HWMonitor is expected to be accurate? I have an old i7-920 that had been semi-retired as an HTPC, but I recently found out that the motherboard supports a 60W Xeon L5520 and found one on eBay for $9 so that I can tinker around with it as a home server. However, I started experimenting with undervolting the i7 while I wait for the Xeon to arrive and found that my 920 is stable at .9V if I cap it at 2.4GHz (18x). At those settings, HWMonitor reads 27W under full load. This is a processor with a 130W TDP so I'm having a hard time being confident that 27W is accurate, but if it is I'm also concerned that the Xeon won't even be an improvement. ed.: I guess this might be really a question about how accurate the sensors are that HWMonitor is reading from, but I'm not even sure if that would be a function of the motherboard or the processor. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 23:33 on May 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
I'm about to hit a 4790k for $275, as the move to a 5820k would be about $600, and I can't possibly imagine the performance increase being worth the over double price tag, even if it's still on an H97, I can get some OC out of it, and it's a big jump from an i5 Haswell.
1st_Panzer_Div. fucked around with this message at 23:24 on May 2, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
1st_Panzer_Div. posted:I'm about to hit a 4790k for $275, as the move to a 5820k would be about $600, and I can't possibly imagine the performance increase being worth the over double price tag, even if it's still on an H97, I can get some OC out of it, and it's a big jump from an i5 Haswell. If it's on an H97 I'm pretty sure you actually can't get some OC out of it unless I missed something. The performance increase isn't going to be nearly 100% unless you have something that can scale smoothly to 12 threads and you overclock the 5820k but not the 4790k, but if you consider the whole system price instead of just proc/MB it is appealing for some use cases.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
I say get the 4790k. It's a great CPU and it runs games just as well as an OCed 5820k.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Yeah, it's totally fine to stop at a normal i7-*k or even i5 for games because most don't scale well beyond 4 threads if that. Make sure you get a Z-series chipset though, not being able to overclock is just leaving performance on the table.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
1st_Panzer_Div. posted:I'm about to hit a 4790k for $275, as the move to a 5820k would be about $600, and I can't possibly imagine the performance increase being worth the over double price tag, even if it's still on an H97, I can get some OC out of it, and it's a big jump from an i5 Haswell. Are you figuring in the cost of a motherboard for the 5820K but using a H97 with an unlocked processor? 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Is a Z board a real requirement for the 4790k? "multi core turbo enhancement" is enough to push one of those to its limit.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 00:26
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Are you figuring in the cost of a motherboard for the 5820K but using a H97 with an unlocked processor? So you literally can't OC an H board?
|
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:There are DDR3L Skylake motherboards though, and my understanding is that the notch pattern is the same as DDR3. However it's intended to run at 1.35V like DDR4, and while you can physically insert it Skylake's memory controller isn't meant to handle 1.5V and may burn out. Some people have tried it and said it works but I don't trust the longevity of overvolting a memory controller like that, and if it burns out your CPU will be dead since it's on the processor in Skylake. For example the ASUS H170 PLUS D3 lists support for DDR3/DDR3L and lists plenty of 1.5v and 1.65v modules on its qualified memory list https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/H170-PLUS-D3/ I'm not sure if the motherboard manufacturers are just ignoring Intel specs or what. On the one hand I feel like ASUS would not list support for regular voltage DDR3 unless they were confident it is going to be stable, since they'd be setting themselves up for a lot of unpleasant tech support tickets. On the other hand if your processor dies from running ram at 1.65v I doubt asus is going to buy you a new one. On the other other hand, if that happens I feel like intel would accept your RMA because they are not going to know what happened from a visual inspection of the processor and they are not going to delve further into it than that. I personally think I would feel safe buying one of those DDR3 boards, but since DDR4 barely costs any extra anymore I would recommend DDR4 boards to pretty much anyone doing a new build. 1st_Panzer_Div. posted:So you literally can't OC an H board?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
LiquidRain posted:Is a Z board a real requirement for the 4790k? "multi core turbo enhancement" is enough to push one of those to its limit. It isn't as compelling as it would be with Skylake or Sandy Bridge, but if you care about the performance enough to pay $100 for an i7 with HT then it makes sense to pay substantially less for a Z chipset. At bare minimum you'll be able to peg the chip at its max turbo of 4.4, and it seems like typically people can get 4.6-4.7 stable from what I am seeing. Also, why are we considering Haswell instead of Skylake - did I miss that? 1st_Panzer_Div. posted:So you literally can't OC an H board? Correct. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 00:42 on May 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 00:40
|
|
1st_Panzer_Div. posted:So you literally can't OC an H board? Nope! However it does not matter very much with the i7-4790k anyway, it has a base speed of 4GHz and a boost clock of 4.4GHz, if you OC it you will get 4.6GHz, maybe 4.7, so you are only losing 200-300MHz or so. There also is an option you can set in BIOS that will make it boost equally on each core so it will hit 4.4 on all cores under full load, just make sure you have some good cooling since it's a hot chip.
|
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:17 |
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Nope! However it does not matter very much with the i7-4790k anyway, it has a base speed of 4GHz and a boost clock of 4.4GHz, if you OC it you will get 4.6GHz, maybe 4.7, so you are only losing 200-300MHz or so. There also is an option you can set in BIOS that will make it boost equally on each core so it will hit 4.4 on all cores under full load, just make sure you have some good cooling since it's a hot chip. Cooling I got, double fan big copper heatsink. That's not much of a loss either, good to note. I'm assuming once the X99's take over more as well, the Z boards will drop in price further, so a future OC upgrade would be very reasonable.
|
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 01:25
|
|