Old 6 core Xeons still good value in a world of used Ryzen's?

[humbug]

Once not so long a go a cheap alternative to Intel's over-priced Core series CPU's were Xeons, used and sometimes even new.

I looked at doing this myself once but just couldn't find an X58 motherboard to go with a used £60 X5860.
Sure the CPU was cheap and a good CPU at the time but trying to find a board much less than £150 was impossible, bearing in mind these were boards approaching 10 years old, that's just insane.

Steve from HUB addressing some channels still singing the virtues of old Sandy and IvyBridge Xeon processors, YesTechCity built a reputation on reviewing and recommending old Xeons and he has stuck to that format to this day, tho oddly he no longer compares the CPU's he recommends to any alternatives.
Other channel's have taken to saying these old Xeons are faster than the Ryzen 5 CPU's, apparently.

And i always found it odd that apparently reputable tech journalists like YesTechCity always failed to mention the cost and difficulty of getting boards for those cheap Xeons.

So Steve had a look, he bought himself a NEW Ryzen 1400 and a used B350 Motherboard, on the Xeon side a brand new but cheap Chinese compatible board and a 6 core IvyBridge. (he couldn't find a used one)

In total the Ryzen 1400 system came in at about 60 AU $ more expensive, about £32.

The results don't look good for the Xeon, they are not "faster than Ryzen 5" it's not even funny how the 6 core Xeon is often way down on the 4 core 1400.

As Steve said, if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.

 

[humbug]

Oh Shaaadup ^^^^ i'll edit the post, thank's for spotting that.

Oh well. Who cares about old tech?

If nothing else its fun to do a little work and be rewarded with good performance by not moving with the herd, but it seems Xeons are now mainstream thinking among budget dopamine fix hunters herded there by mainstream channel's still using the "alternative" argument because its become a cashcow for them, i'm looking at you YesTechCity.

 

[humbug]

I have a problem with that guy. The last VA monitor i bought was the 32 inch viewsonix 1440p 144hz, was touted by him to the best and so so so so fast and with no other real reviews of the monitor I thought I would take the risk. Not surprisingly the monitor turned out to be one big blurry mess no matter the overdrive settings or the hz set. It was even a lot worse than the asus mx34vq i've had previously. This plus other videos with him saying things where that " wait a minute that cant be right " thought pops up.

Well at this point its pretty obvious Steve's video was aimed at this guy.

He use a stock 2600 vs a stock Xeon e5-2420 v2 Both these CPU's are 6 core 12 thread, his argument was that if you're on a budget you're using lower end GPU's, i completely agree, but he also said the Xeon would not bettleneck lower end GPU's, he used a GTX 1650 and an RX 570.

I do agree that if you're on a very tight budget an old Xeon is a good place to look, IF you can find compatible boards which he as usual fails to talk about the fact that this is not easy, but then he pairs the CPU with a GTX 1650 and RX 570 and says the Xeon will not bottleneck these GPU's.

Then it comes to the testing result's, here he completely ignored the 1% lows, which is your minimum FPS, says nothing at all about that, he pulls away the graph and talks about the 90 FPS average, about how you're going to be completely satisfied with that, i don't know about you but i couldn't live with 34 FPS, best not say anything about that....



And then there's this.... CS:GO is the worst game of all for Ryzen, its very old and have never been optimized for Ryzen, so the graph below to me just shows the reality of the vast difference between an IvyBridge Xeon and Ryzen, this is way more than clock speed.
The 2600, which is not a highly clocked CPU is twice as fast as the Xeon, in CS:GO.



After all this he turned round and said "sure, if you get a high end GPU the Ryzen 2600 will be better, but the Xeon will balance out the results on Budget GPU's" As if that's what his results showed.

 

[humbug]

Its would make a great private Insurgency / Insurgency Sandstorm server.

 

[humbug]

No point arguing with those who still use x58 systems and claim they don’t limit GPU’s, best to let them enjoy and move on.

For example, it used to annoy me that my grandparents still use a
Black and white tv. Or those who wash by hand instead of using a washing machine.

Even if there are faster, better options out there, that aren’t that much more expensive, some will always stick to their old stuff out of principle.

Just to be clear, i'm not making any argument for or against, tho i will say those X5650 are good chip's and IMO plenty capable.

My issue is with some reviewers building a cashcow channel on pushing some older Xeon CPU's as something they are not.

 

[humbug]

The video in OP is reviewing them at stock, of course they're going to be bad. They're insane clockers and you can easily get 1.5Ghz+ overclocks on them.

Overclocked they're barely worse than Ryzens, it's a joke considering how old they are.

Twice as fast and the 1400 overclocks a good way too.

 

[humbug]

this can be the case but can sometimes also be misleading. people in the new zen thread are comparing a 3600 to a stock 5820k for eg and saying upto 30 percent difference on single core ipc. the 5820k is clocked at 3.3ghz lol. when many will do upto 4.5ghz+. the difference is night and day and nigh on as quick clocked as the 3600. or close enough not to warrant upgrading. sad thing is some will based on stupid benchmarks. upgrade and waste 700-1000 pound. think before posting stupid benchmarks which obviously arent done well. it could cost someone a lot of money for next to no upgrade . sometimes even worse performance. while many will have the spare funds . some wont and will of saved for years for that next upgrade. that stupid benchmark may swing their decisions.

5820K @ 4.0Ghz

Well here's the AMD 3600 vs my 5820K in geekbench. Now my 5820K is only at 4Ghz

Ryzen 3000 is looking extremely promising for performance and features.

3600 +25% ST, +31% MT.

 

[humbug]

just to compare and show real figures. 5820k everything running in background daily use. at 4.4 with 2400mhz ram. scores


this chip does 4.6 all day. most 5820ks will do 4.4-4.5 with right cooling. then remember that 3600 ram its using. 2400 on the 5820k . 3600 mhz on the zen. quite a bit of difference just on ram. so overclocked 5820k with same speed ram would be very close. you just chose the minimums to try and pro amd it. the 3600 is basically a 8700. non k chip. thats it.

Well that's not bad, 4.4Ghz vs 4.2Ghz, 700 points ST, near 20% IPC difference. You like that number, you've used it incorrectly a lot

 

[humbug]

not bad compare like for like. 3600 mhz vs 2400. thats a massive difference. i expect the 3600 to be quicker. it should be its new 5820k is 5 years old roughly. the point is with the same ram and the 5820k overclocked there isnt much in it. good though if you buying on budget now.

run your ryzen 1600 for comparision humbug.

Quick run at 3.8Ghz.

4420
21858

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13713977

 

[humbug]

so basically if the 3600 is as said single ipc is about the same as said 8700-8700k

8700 https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/2063 5327
8700k https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/2062 5891

giving some actual insight. so people can guage possible performance.

Similar ST score but 4.7Ghz vs 4.2Ghz, the 8700K is 12% higher clocked. the 3950X will be clocked to 4.7Ghz.

Also, add the clock speed difference vs my 3.8Ghz ontop of your 5080 and i would score 5127.

 

[humbug]

the difference is mine will do as said ryzens wont.same as the 8700k. oc is valid if they can do it. thats why your 1600 is at 3.9. if it could do this that which it cant.pointless. the benchmark actually shows how slow ryzen chips are tbh. 2700x scoring below a 5820k. nevermind a 1600. the new cpus look promising though if this benchmark shows real relevance

Your 5820K @ 4.4Ghz: 5080 ST / 25572 MT

2700X @ 4.15Ghz: 5183 ST / 30245 MT

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13708810

Look i'm not denying the 5820K is a great chip, it is, why so defensive? doesn't mean the 1600 isn't, your talking about a 15% difference because of higher clocks vs a CPU that's also 3 years old now, and it was less than £200, an entry level CPU from 2016 vs the top end mainstream from 2015.

same as the 8700k

WTF is that?

As for Ryzen 3000, Sub £200 3600 scoring the same at 4.2Ghz as a 4.7Ghz 8700K, it's the lowest clocked CPU in the Ryzen 3000 family, the cheapest, last year the 8700K was the best Mainstream CPU Intel offered.

I think we should go back to Intel's incremental drip drip BS..... Its why you still have a 5820K. wonderful.

 

[humbug]

I don't think you understand what IPC is, IPC is what the CPU does at a given clock speed, a CPU scoring 5100 @ 4.15Ghz has a higher IPC than a CPU scoring 5100 at 4.4Ghz.

 

[humbug]

Actually it went like this...

people in the new zen thread are comparing a 3600 to a stock 5820k for eg and saying upto 30 percent difference on single core ipc. the 5820k is clocked at 3.3ghz lol.

5820K @ 4.0Ghz

Well here's the AMD 3600 vs my 5820K in geekbench. Now my 5820K is only at 4Ghz

Ryzen 3000 is looking extremely promising for performance and features.

3600 +25% ST, +31% MT.

From the Ryzen 3000 thread was not "3.3Ghz" it was 4Ghz

 

[humbug]

so not showing the potential of a fully overclocked cpu to make the results look better for amd ? yes ? not like you.

That's not the point, just like you do over and over again with your "Intel has 20% higher IPC" you made claims that you know not to be true.

Why not quote that in the thread it was posted and say that against what was actually written?

 

[humbug]

I was talking about the 1400, while thinking about the 1600, he's right, i do apologize the 1400 is not "twice as fast"

 

[humbug]

The Ryzen 5 1600 is now under £100 if you shop around!

There'll be one up for sale on the MM in a couple of weeks

Possibly with Motherboard.