upgrading an 5820k to xeon v3/ 780 ti sli --->1080 SC acx3 sli, will current psu+case do the job

[alucasa]

ES (including QS) does not guarantee advertised turbo. It could be a little less or far less. QS has a chance to have full turbo though.

Each chip is different when it comes to ES.

 

[cdawall]

so if my chip is an es sample (being QS per same as oem basically) than it will turbo all/all and be unlocked multiplier? what kind of tdp would it put it at(120w base)

No Xeon 2XXX/4XXX has an unlocked multiplier, the QS/ES chips have all of the bins unlocked for turbo across all cores by default. TDP will still be limited to 120w unless changed in the BIOS and BCLK will still be locked like all other Xeon's.

ES (including QS) does not guarantee advertised turbo. It could be a little less or far less. QS has a chance to have full turbo though.

Each chip is different when it comes to ES.

My v4 chip has the same turbo as retail.

 

[cadaveca]

keep the 5820, and do get the HB bridge. I have used the advanced (LED) and the HB bridge as well as regular bridges, and my sensitive eyes notice the difference. It's just not in the FPS displayed. Not everyone will notice the difference, just like not everyone notices frame pacing issues.

I tested on 1070s, not 1080s.

 

[alucasa]

I am with Cadaveca on this one. Keep 5820k.

 

[Recon-UK]

XEON's only make sense if they are priced similar or lower and you are getting much more bang for your buck.

XEON's are server grade CPU's for a good reason.

 

[cdawall]

XEON's only make sense if they are priced similar or lower and you are getting much more bang for your buck.

XEON's are server grade CPU's for a good reason.

He is looking at a qs chip which means it is cheap.

 

[Kanan]

sure, solitaire and crysis will run 500fps in 1080p instead of 600 fps, but i intend to do gpu bound workloads and settings, @4k msaa the cpu is less of a factor, ; what about future proofing next games which will be threaded?, dont worry, the xeon will rip to shreds any game processing you throw at it @10% cpu usage, my 5820k can only cry to mama

Sorry but this is bullshit and you keep repeating it, though doesn't make it any more true. Games use 2-6 core's atm and up to 8 threads mostly, even the games that use more than 4 cores are exceptions, needless to say that games that use more than 6 are ~nonexistent. So it's just stupid to go for a 18 core CPU for gaming, as it's magnitudes slower than a 6700K or 5820K. My old 3960X smokes your 18 core "monster" easily, because the few cores that get used are clocked very high on my CPU and very low on yours. Just an example. And because you want to do heavy computing via SLI gaming the CPU's throughput IS INDEED very important, this is were you are very wrong, thinkin that 3.2 GHz is enough - no it's not, by far not. CPU usage is high on SLI setups because the CPU needs to deliver that big data chunks to 2 GPUs so they can work with full utilization. If you don't get this, buy that shit and be disappointed that it will take 10 to 20 years until all 18 cores are utilized. Too bad that this processor is garbage now (gaming wise) and in a few years it's just garbage because it's old.

Gaming development, CPU core wise, is pretty slow. I bought a dual core 2006 and it took 3 years until dual core was widespread - the CPU was half garbage then because IPC was low/mhz was low. Then I bought a quad core 2009 and it took 3 years until SOME games used it. Now it's 2016 and just maybe since 2015 most games need 4 cores (or 4 threads) to properly work. So let's see. 6 years+. 6 cores aren't needed still and you're talking about 18 cores? I bet 6 cores are good in 1-2 years, the new standard but 18 cores? Maybe in 10 or 15 years or more. Your decision to buy a 18 core is just wrong. The best you could do for a mixed gaming/workstation machine right now is a 8 or 10 core, and a 6 core if budget matters. End of story. Too bad I already stated this and you ignored it.

 

[er557]

Why is it wrong when i can lock speed bins to 3-3.5ghz and game on while running any other project on the side? If you gonna use unproffesional words like shit and garbage i guess you are just pissed/jealous that you cant afford such a rig...
That's the words some c**k su**er used to describe my 40" 4k philips monitor because it didnt have hdmi 2.0, and he still uses his measly 25" and i happily use mine.

P.S. forgot to mention the cpu cooler- arctic freezer i30, cpu was shipped..... benchmarks soon

 

[Kanan]

Why is it wrong when i can lock speed bins to 3-3.5ghz and game on while running any other project on the side? If you gonna use unproffesional words like shit and garbage i guess you are just pissed/jealous that you cant afford such a rig...
That's the words some c**k su**er used to describe my 40" 4k philips monitor because it didnt have hdmi 2.0, and he still uses his measly 25" and i happily use mine.

P.S. forgot to mention the cpu cooler- arctic freezer i30, cpu was shipped..... benchmarks soon

I'm not pissed off because I'm jealous, I'm pissed off because you ignored my first statement.

I already told you, if you want to game and do more, workstation stuff, get an 8 or 10 core - they are perfectly suited for gaming because you can overclock them to 4.5 GHz or even more and they have more than enough cores to start other applications and let them run while you're gaming. The least you need then is a 6 core, but I'd rather get a 5960X / 6900K then (if you can afford it, which you probably can) and a 6950X is the optimum then. Also don't forget that higher clocked cores, even if you lose 8-10 cores you still get some of the performance of the lost cores back via overclocking. So it's not like you're totally losing out on the performance level workstation wise. You lose some performance, yes, but you gain a absolute gaming machine with good workstation abilites on top instead of having a crippled gaming machine with CPU bottleneck that's in reality just a workstation machine.

Why should someone who is jealous say that the 18 core is crap for gaming and then tell you to buy something similar or even more expensive then instead? oO Strange. Still, I hope you consider my advice and go for it.

PS. if you already bought it, which seems so, then good luck.

 

[cdawall]

I'm not pissed off because I'm jealous, I'm pissed off because you ignored my first statement.

I already told you, if you want to game and do more, workstation stuff, get an 8 or 10 core - they are perfectly suited for gaming because you can overclock them to 4.5 GHz or even more and they have more than enough cores to start other applications and let them run while you're gaming. The least you need then is a 6 core, but I'd rather get a 5960X / 6900K then (if you can afford it, which you probably can) and a 6950X is the optimum then. Also don't forget that higher clocked cores, even if you lose 8-10 cores you still get some of the performance of the lost cores back via overclocking. So it's not like you're totally losing out on the performance level workstation wise. You lose some performance, yes, but you gain a absolute gaming machine with good workstation abilites on top instead of having a crippled gaming machine with CPU bottleneck that's in reality just a workstation machine.

Why should someone who is jealous say that the 18 core is crap for gaming and then tell you to buy something similar or even more expensive then instead? oO Strange. Still, I hope you consider my advice and go for it.

PS. if you already bought it, which seems so, then good luck.

What are we supposed to be jealous of? This is what I am using for work and it is plugged into either a ROG swift 2560x1440p@144hz or a 43" 4K 60hz TV.

 

[TheUnbrained]

this thread is funny af, i mean we are in a time where hyperthreading is kinda useless (i mean u arent see much difference in singlecore performance or better said up to 4 cores...) and OP wants a 18core cpu and already have an op-cpu aka 5820k

to go back what i rly wanted write: no one asks specifically what the OP do with it (i mean, at work, i saw customers that managed to get a 10 core xeon maxed out with photoshop, lightroom and other render stuff) so... er557, pls say us specifically what are you doing with ur pc.

and @er557 is it rly needed to use an argument like "ur just jealous because you cant afford it"... i mean even a 6 year old kid is better with its arguments... and to show it for guys who rly dont know about clocks/cores:

if you have an 8 core cpu for example with max 4ghz then it looks like:

1core used = 4Ghz
2cores used = 3,9Ghz
3cores used = 3,8Ghz
4cores used = and so on...

most games dont support more than 4 cores means = higher clock on less cores is better than more cores with lower clock (and NOPE 3,5ghz isnt enough)

sry @Kanan that i doubled what you said, this is just my try that a kid can understand it

btw @cdawall ... f*ckin nice setup *__*

 

[cdawall]

btw @cdawall ... f*ckin nice setup *__*

LOL thanks. I'm not on to brag, but Jesus calling people poor like that drives me nuts.

 

[er557]

OK, settle down lads, nodody's poor,
ON TOPIC, I intend to OC tdp or similar setting in bios 120W-->>140W so it can turbo as many cores as possible, I will be sure to bench and test, but I dont see bottlenecks there. I just love CORES and GRUNT and if 400 bucks achieves that, so be it.
BTW, is it unfortunate I will end up doing 8x 8x pcie 3.0 on those 1080's(slot placement and the sb Z sound card in the middle) or no big deal? ram will need to drop to 2133mhz from 2.4ghz due to the xeon not liking xmp, possibly paired with my second 4x 4gb kit to get 16+32 gb, will those kits boot together?/ same specs . ?? quad kits seem to like running alone instead of mix and match.
P.S. no offense, but why people dont look on the bright side and see this cpu as a win win? from passmark charts, only few xeon score higher than this cpu, out of all the cpus available globally. contrary to the low clocks misconception, i think it's very future proof cpu. I will be in a lot better position to assert this after having tested and benchmarked the setup

 

[slozomby]

OK, settle down lads, nodody's poor,
ON TOPIC, I intend to OC tdp or similar setting in bios 120W-->>140W so it can turbo as many cores as possible, I will be sure to bench and test, but I dont see bottlenecks there. I just love CORES and GRUNT and if 400 bucks achieves that, so be it.
BTW, is it unfortunate I will end up doing 8x 8x pcie 3.0 on those 1080's(slot placement and the sb Z sound card in the middle) or no big deal? ram will need to drop to 2133mhz from 2.4ghz due to the xeon not liking xmp, possibly paired with my second 4x 4gb kit to get 16+32 gb, will those kits boot together?/ same specs . ?? quad kits seem to like running alone instead of mix and match.
P.S. no offense, but why people dont look on the bright side and see this cpu as a win win? from passmark charts, only few xeon score higher than this cpu, out of all the cpus available globally. contrary to the low clocks misconception, i think it's very future proof cpu. I will be in a lot better position to assert this after having tested and benchmarked the setup

there's no question the 18 core xeon is a beast. as a professional workstation it'd be nearly impossible to beat. its just not all that great as a gaming cpu. maybe when devs actually learn to take advantage of lots of cores/threads it'll do better.

 

[Kanan]

turbo as many cores as possible, I will be sure to bench and test, but I dont see bottlenecks there. I just love CORES and GRUNT and if 400 bucks achieves that, so be it.

Just because you are not well informed and "can't see it" doesn't change the fact that it's not a gamer cpu suited for a highend gpu setup. And it will never be a good gamer cpu as in "never". Thats why intel did xeon like cpus with free multipliers and 6-10 cores and priced them ass expensive so people pay the "proper price" for the best performance. Compared to that crippled 18 core that's not overclockable that is. You just have no clue sorry. It will take like forever until even 10 cores are proper utilised in games let alone more than 10 cores.

I'm out. Do what you want - fuck ignorance.

 

[slozomby]

Thats why intel did xeon like cpus with free multipliers and 6-10 cores and priced them ass expensive so people pay the "proper price" for the best performance.

I'm confused. what constitutes the proper price for something.

the 18 core xeon will destroy any 10 core xeon in raw processing power. its just not a great gaming chip.

intel charging a premium for not artificially limiting their own product is a good thing?

 

[cdawall]

I have a 24 core 2p rig as well. CPU utilization is normally next to nothing. It's not future proofing anything.

 

[Kanan]

I'm confused. what constitutes the proper price for something.

the 18 core xeon will destroy any 10 core xeon in raw processing power. its just not a great gaming chip.

intel charging a premium for not artificially limiting their own product is a good thing?

Omg are you actually understanding what's going on here or not? His machine is supposed to be for gaming and workstation not only ws. A 10 core which can do both decently is priced at 1600 bucks by Intel because they know what it's capable of and they know that the 18 core is bullshit for that. Same for all older 6 cores that were very expensive and 8 cores. Unlocked multiplier on a hexa octa and more cpu is very expensive because it's able to do anything very good - not just workstation. The best Intel cpus are the 6950x the 6900k, the 5960x etc. That 18 core xeon is not even in the top 10.

Some proof for reading:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/CPU-Hardware-154106/Tests/Rangliste-Bestenliste-1143392/

 

[Recon-UK]

Just use the i7 you already own, if you need an upgrade that bad grab a 6950X and go balls to the wall with 12 TITAN XP's, 2 for me, 2 for @CAPSLOCKSTUCK

 

[slozomby]

bucks by Intel because they know what it's capable of and they know that the 18 core is bullshit for that. Same for all older 6 cores that were very expensive and 8 cores. Unlocked multiplier on a hexa octa and more cpu is very expensive because it's able to do anything very good - not just workstation.

unlocked multiplier is better. but they're charging a premium for not crippling your proc. the only reason intel locks the multipliers is so they can charge more money. NVidia does the same thing on their cards. crippling the compute side so they can charge more for the quaddro/tesla cards.

I already said the 18core proc wasn't a great gaming chip. can you game on it. sure. are there better options yes. slow down and read what others are posting before you have an aneurism.

 

[Kanan]

unlocked multiplier is better. but they're charging a premium for not crippling your proc. the only reason intel locks the multipliers is so they can charge more money. NVidia does the same thing on their cards. crippling the compute side so they can charge more for the quaddro/tesla cards.

I already said the 18core proc wasn't a great gaming chip. can you game on it. sure. are there better options yes. slow down and read what others are posting before you have an aneurism.

True they do it because they CAN. If those xeons would be better or equally as good they simply couldn't do it. Point made 10 times now but I guess op will never understand it. Funny enough that even a old i5 2500k with overclock is probably better in gaming than that xeon. Many cores are just irrelevant. Ipc and high MHz on a few cores isn't.

 

[er557]

OK, you had too much vodka for breakfast!! all you said in last your 2 posts is exact opposite the truth- 1st- the xeons are not priced lower due to being incapable, they cost normally 4000-6000$, are you real? just these chips are qualification/engineering sample/used/ hence a lot more affordable. they have more features and possibilities than any top i7 you can choose( 768gb max system ram, ECC ram, ws /server/ extensions not present on i7, dual cpu support and more and more), and normally as retail cost an arm and a leg. the fact it's multiplier locked does not mean it's crippled, just optimized for stability, and low and behold- they run cooler and with less power than those i7. the multiplier unlocked cpu are designed to rob gaming fan boys who dont know their 1000$ cpu is just the tip of the iceberg of what's available to enterpises. You really talk about IPC ? those xeon cores are haswell -identical.
2nd- The chart you showed is CONSUMER CHIP oriented, see the high end cpu chart @passmark and watch the 6950x pwned by the xeons. remind me it's multi threaded score?

 

[GreiverBlade]

between a Xeon E3-1275v2 and a i7-3770K (HT off on both since for gaming ... ) i've kept the i7 and then slowly shifted to a i5-4690K and now i am on a 6600K, ok it's relative since it was Ivy bridge 1155 gen.
although i don't do 4K (what for????), SLI nor heavy tasking, i just gaming, most game take on all settings to max, even MMO's that are notorious to like more core (core not thread)

since you do more than gaming on it ... why not ... take the bait and see for yourself if you are right since the beginning ...

 

[slozomby]

OK, you had too much vodka for breakfast!! all you said in last your 2 posts is exact opposite the truth- 1st- the xeons are not priced lower due to being incapable, they cost normally 4000-6000$, are you real?

the E5-1660 v4 and i7-6900k are nearly identical chips. and nearly identically priced at ~$1100
if you don't need more than 128gb of ram ( almost everyone on the planet) theres really no reason to pick the e5-1660 v4.
not all xeons are $6000.

they have more features and possibilities than any top i7 you can choose( 768gb max system ram, ECC ram, ws /server/ extensions not present on i7, dual cpu support and more and more), and normally as retail cost an arm and a leg.

not all xeons support dual cpu, while the e5-1660 supports 1.5 TB of ram if its in a motherboard that doesn't support that it cant address that either. theres far more that goes into the differences between a server and a gaming rig than just the procs.
ECC ram, well there are 2 theories on that IMO, 1st if your ram is producing enough errors that you need error correction built into it you should buy better ram, 2nd only missions critical highly redundant systems really need that level of protection.

the fact it's multiplier locked does not mean it's crippled, just optimized for stability, and low and behold- they run cooler and with less power than those i7.

actually a locked multiplier does mean its a crippled chip. previous versions of the xeons did not have the multiplier lock and were just as stable. when comparing like for like processors such as the 2 I listed above they run at the same temp/power levels at stock speeds. I haven't found a cpu yet that isn't stable at stock speeds. I also haven't found too many that aren't stable when reasonably overclocked ( sometimes you lose the silicon lottery).

the multiplier unlocked cpu are designed to rob gaming fan boys who dont know their 1000$ cpu is just the tip of the iceberg of what's available to enterpises. You really talk about IPC ? those xeon cores are haswell -identical.
2nd- The chart you showed is CONSUMER CHIP oriented, see the high end cpu chart @passmark and watch the 6950x pwned by the xeons. remind me it's multi threaded score?

there is no arguing that the 18+ core xeons will destroy an i7 in highly threaded applications like sql server or as a rendering machine or as an esxi server. there is also no arguing that a current i7 will outperform an 18+ core xeon as a gaming rig where raw clock speed per core is the advantage.

as for the unlocked multiplier there to rob fanboys. check out the performance of the i7-6700 vs the 6700k. the k is faster. I am against the concept of locked chips but to say there's no performance gain with the K chips and easily bumping the proc up from 4.0 to 4.6 ( or higher) is inaccurate.

having worked in multiple "enterprise" shops ( 200+ servers). I would never take what I built for a esxi server or sql cluster for a gaming rig. and 95% of our machines were i5's at the last shop because you don't need an 18 core xeon to run a Point of Sale terminal. of the 3500 workstations we had, 6 had xeons because the graphics guys managed to convince someone they "NEEDED" a mac pro.

http://ark.intel.com/products/94196/Intel-Core-i7-6900K-Processor-20M-Cache-up-to-3_70-GHz
http://ark.intel.com/products/92985/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-1660-v4-20M-Cache-3_20-GHz

 

[cdawall]

^best explanation in the thread.