1366 X58 Xeon 5650

DragonQ · 2 Nov 2015 at 08:41

Dave2150 said:
x58 systems with a 920 were always very power hungry, especially when overclocked:

Here's an article by tomshardware on this very subject:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/overclock-core-i7,2268-10.html

Confirming 150W at only 4Ghz on a i7 920.

Yep, partly because the overlocking was BCLK based rather than multiplier based, meaning the lowest frequency SpeedStep would drop down to was ~2.2 GHz instead of ~1.2 GHz. Plus the fact that some people needed near 1.4 V to get 4 GHz.

Dave2150 said:
Now imagine the xeon 5650 etc, with 2 additional cores, overclocked to 4.2 or 4.4Ghz....

The Xeons have a lower TDP compared to the original Bloomfields, despite the extra cores, presumably because they are 32 nm rather than 45 nm. So the power usage should be similar I would imagine.

tres_kun · 2 Nov 2015 at 11:08

Have a xeon 5672 a quad core
With 5 hard drives
Idle power consumption 80 Watts
No OC Dell t3500
Will love to overclock the chip but o well

kylew_is_back · 3 Nov 2015 at 11:34

Dave2150 said:
Confirming 150W at only 4Ghz on a i7 920.

Now imagine the xeon 5650 etc, with 2 additional cores, overclocked to 4.2 or 4.4Ghz....

A x5650 at 4GHz consumes less watts than a i7 920 at 4GHz, keep in mind that it is 32nm vs 45nm.

...and also run way cooler, infact a x5650 at 4.4GHz runs cooler than a i7 920 at 4GHz(at least what happened in my case)

K1LaW8tt5 · 3 Nov 2015 at 17:45

Ricimer said:
Ok, some more testing, power meter is quite terrible and doesn't seem to produce accurate figures with the PC, although it's ok with other things (the bulbs, a heater).

Even I can manage to work out the watts must be wrong given the amps and voltage reading.

Out of interest I've pulled some historical figures from my UPS during gaming (PC usually plugged into it) and peak puts the PC at a little over 400w.

Need a better power meter!

AC watts is not equal to volts multiplied by amps.

I idle around 240-250w and around 600w while gaming.
This is with 5670. @4.4ghz and 290x @1200 with lots of voltage

Ricimer · 3 Nov 2015 at 18:29

weldon855 said:
AC watts is not equal to volts multiplied by amps.

I idle around 240-250w and around 600w while gaming.
This is with 5670. @4.4ghz and 290x @1200 with lots of voltage

True, but the spec for the PF with PFC on the PSU is 0.99

So if V is 246, A is 2.1 and PF is 0.99 then watts should be more than 230.

K1LaW8tt5 · 4 Nov 2015 at 17:25

Ricimer said:
True, but the spec for the PF with PFC on the PSU is 0.99

So if V is 246, A is 2.1 and PF is 0.99 then watts should be more than 230.

Specs like that tend to be best case scenario similar to your cars MPG. My psu pf can drop as low as 0.8 and is speced as 0.99 active PFC. Of course Im not ruling out that there is a problem with your meter but as you say it seems correct for pure resistive unity loads like a heater/ lamp.

Ricimer · 4 Nov 2015 at 18:44

I assume it is the meter, I think it was free with something

With GPU-Z showing 96% TDP on an overclocked 780ti and 5670 running prime95, 200-230 does seem a little too optimistic

PSU is Corsair HX850 (older, silver version). A PF of 0.45 or so would be rather low. It seems some meters have issues with active PFC readings.

I shall have to get something a little more advanced, interested in power use of my Microservers with the 1220L installed.

AiiR · 4 Nov 2015 at 19:00

Built my brother a new gaming PC using the Asus P6T SE I got for free from a friend (Dead PC, turns out it was just the power supply!). Updated BIOS, put the spare Xeon I had in and booted straight in at 4GHz and doesn't go a touch above 70c under full load on air..

Unfortunately my girlfriend had bought me an matx case, otherwise I'd have had the Asus board in my own build! Definitely a good upgrade.

Sh4rkie · 5 Nov 2015 at 11:53

kylew_is_back said:
A x5650 at 4GHz consumes less watts than a i7 920 at 4GHz, keep in mind that it is 32nm vs 45nm.

...and also run way cooler, infact a x5650 at 4.4GHz runs cooler than a i7 920 at 4GHz(at least what happened in my case)

Agreed!

My i7 930 @ 4Ghz ran hotter and more voltage hungry than my X5650.

CPU @ 4.2 (210BLCK) 1.368v (CPUZ), 20gb, AMD Fury (unlocked + oc/d), 2 x SSD, 2 x HDD, numerous USB powered devices:

X5650 idle in Windows + steam background download - 170 - 180w
OCCT full load - 260 - 270w
Dirt Rally benchmark @ 4k (100% gpu) + a few RDP sessions - 430w

Matty_Boy · 6 Nov 2015 at 09:12

My Xeon X5670 @4.2Ghz runs approx 10c cooler at idle than my old i7 930 @ 3.8Ghz.
Very happy with the performance bump and lower temps from this relatively cheap upgrade!

sithlord · 6 Nov 2015 at 12:32

My Xeon X5650 hung today on cold boot at "USB MASS Storage devices" prompt... had to reboot it.

Which volts would I need to boost to prevent it happening again.

Im at 3.8Ghz CPU 1.25v. It passes 1 hour of LinX.

Sh4rkie · 6 Nov 2015 at 13:13

sithlord said:
My Xeon X5650 hung today on cold boot at "USB MASS Storage devices" prompt... had to reboot it.

Which volts would I need to boost to prevent it happening again.

Im at 3.8Ghz CPU 1.25v. It passes 1 hour of LinX.

It might not be related to the cpu voltage but at 3.8 it shouldn't take much voltage to be stable. Put it up to 1.3v and check it's stable using OCCT or Prime95. If it is stable for several hours bring the voltage down a notch and retest until you find your sweet spot. If it's still not stable bump the voltage just watch your temps depending on your cooling.

sithlord · 6 Nov 2015 at 13:22

I got a feeling its not CPU volts related. The other settings are on Auto so could be one of them ?

LinX is much better than Prime 95 & OCCT I find. Ive had things run for 10 hours in Prime 95 but crash within 5 mins of LinX.

Sh4rkie · 6 Nov 2015 at 13:41

Depends what they auto at. The only changes i've made to get stable 1366 CPUs were CPU, QPI and PLL, the others (e.g. ioh, ich) i set manually to stock volts.

I found the opposite largely with LinX, Prime on small to test mostly CPU and blend to test CPU / Mem. OCCT i like because when it craps out if it's recoverable you get lots of screenshots to gauge what went wrong.

mid_gen · 9 Nov 2015 at 13:51

First up, apologies I have long since lost touch with CPU/chipset technology.

I've got an ageing i2500 (non K) system which needs an upgrade. It's mainly for pretty heavy photoshop/illustrator and compiling/UE4/encoding etc. So cores are king and single thread gaming performance is secondary. 32GB RAM is also a requirement. I was looking at a 5820K but it's looking like an expensive upgrade.

Would a 5650 with an OC to 4 ghz or thereabouts give me similar performance to a 5820k in multihreaded applications? What's a decent motherboard that'll happily fit a pair of R9 280x?

skyripper · 9 Nov 2015 at 13:56

Trouble is that the motherboards for 5650s etc. are going up in price rather than down. The upgrade only makes economic sense if you're running an i7 920 type of processor. I got one for my lad because he already had the right kind of motherboard.

DragonQ · 9 Nov 2015 at 13:59

Yeah, I don't see the point of going X58 unless you already have the motherboard (or can get one really cheaply).

nick_000000 · 9 Nov 2015 at 14:37

DragonQ said:
Yeah, I don't see the point of going X58 unless you already have the motherboard (or can get one really cheaply).

Yeah really no point getting one now seeing as the platform is 7 years old, unless you get it at a ridiculously low price. X99 would be the obvious choice if you need something high end now. I myself won't be upgrading my X58 system until it fails or if Intel's next high end offerings can blow me away with something that looks really amazing as far as features go. I would like something with SATA3 and the UEFI to make use of my SSDs but I can't justify a system upgrade just for those features.

mid_gen · 9 Nov 2015 at 14:51

Hmm, after doing a few comparisons it seems it would only be a few hundred saving after paying through the nose for a used mobo. Might as well go the whole hog and X99/DDR4/5820k, plus ability to stick a 950 m.2 in down the line.

DragonQ · 9 Nov 2015 at 15:22

nick_000000 said:
Yeah really no point getting one now seeing as the platform is 7 years old, unless you get it at a ridiculously low price. X99 would be the obvious choice if you need something high end now. I myself won't be upgrading my X58 system until it fails or if Intel's next high end offerings can blow me away with something that looks really amazing as far as features go. I would like something with SATA3 and the UEFI to make use of my SSDs but I can't justify a system upgrade just for those features.

Same, I'm sure the lure of M.2 NVMe SSDs and a system that doesn't take 25 seconds to POST will grow over the next year or two, but it's still a large outlay for not much improvement (based on what I use the PC for). Of course, AMD's Zen might also be tempting.