This would usually be a no-brainer, but I have an odd situation. I currently have an older i3 system with an i3-2120 CPU, so dual core, hyperthreaded @ 3.3GHz. But, there is also the possibility of using a much newer system equipped with a Xeon, but this is an E5-2640 v2 running at 2GHz. I know that for multithreaded applications the Xeon would be so much quicker it's beyond funny, but does anyone know about single threaded apps? Would the newer technology and increased cache of the Xeon make up for the massive clock advantage of the i3?
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Old i3 vs new Xeon
- Thread starter enigmo
- Start date
I've got that exact CPU if you want me to test it? Then you can compare it to what you have now 
Edit. The Xeon is not 2ghz dude. Unlike the I3 (no I3s have it !) the Xeon sports Turbo boost 2.0. This means your chip turbos to 2.5ghz on one core so it should turbo boost to at least 2.3ghz on all cores.
You can manually force the chip to run at full turbo all of the time in a matter of seconds.
Edit. The Xeon is not 2ghz dude. Unlike the I3 (no I3s have it !) the Xeon sports Turbo boost 2.0. This means your chip turbos to 2.5ghz on one core so it should turbo boost to at least 2.3ghz on all cores.
You can manually force the chip to run at full turbo all of the time in a matter of seconds.
Last edited:
I've got that exact CPU if you want me to test it? Then you can compare it to what you have now
The Xeon's board will be some flavour of X79 dude. It should support XMP memory profiles natively, so you can run any speed you like. I do 
I would run 3Dmark (13) Firestrike and give me your Physics score. It's free.. Also install and run 3dmark 11, again giving me your physics score.
http://www.3dmark.com/
3Dmark (no 13 but it was released in 2013).
Cinebench R15.
http://www.maxon.net/products/cinebench/overview.html
Now to see how the Xeon fares on just one or two cores you want Asus Realbench.
http://rog.asus.com/241042013/overclocking/rog-realbench-free-app-download-now/
Make sure it's 2.0. Basically this will test one core, two cores, then all of the cores..
Once you have your results I can show you just how much you can expect
I would run 3Dmark (13) Firestrike and give me your Physics score. It's free.. Also install and run 3dmark 11, again giving me your physics score.
http://www.3dmark.com/
3Dmark (no 13 but it was released in 2013).
Cinebench R15.
http://www.maxon.net/products/cinebench/overview.html
Now to see how the Xeon fares on just one or two cores you want Asus Realbench.
http://rog.asus.com/241042013/overclocking/rog-realbench-free-app-download-now/
Make sure it's 2.0. Basically this will test one core, two cores, then all of the cores..
Once you have your results I can show you just how much you can expect
I'm having issues running the Realbench benchmark which I will try and fix tonight. The 3dmark/Cinebench ones seem less relevant as this is a headless server but I'll give those a go too. Also, I probably won't select the stress test, as none of these chips are overclocked so that doesn't seem relevant. It might also be worthwhile mentioning a new option; the i3-2120 with it's decent straight-line speed, the E5-2130v2 (6/12 core,2.6/3.1GHz), and now an E5-2140v2. I know the issue here is the 2140 has 8/16 cores but only a 2GHz base clock (2.5 turbo) so I'm not sure it's even under consideration as that single-threaded performance hit looks like too much.
The irony is that overall I bet the 6 core is pretty much on track with the 8 core even when all of the 8 core is in use thanks to the extra clock speed on the 6 core.
The 6 core will also be far more compatible tbh.
I decided yesterday to use my 8 core to build myself a Hackintosh. Probably the best thing I could have chosen to do with it as it's natively supported by Mavericks and will be fully used as video editing on Macs makes full use of all the cores (they do a dual 6c Mac Pro for example).
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18615872
Were my results using the 8 core...
The 6 core will also be far more compatible tbh.
I decided yesterday to use my 8 core to build myself a Hackintosh. Probably the best thing I could have chosen to do with it as it's natively supported by Mavericks and will be fully used as video editing on Macs makes full use of all the cores (they do a dual 6c Mac Pro for example).
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18615872
Were my results using the 8 core...
The 6 core is better supported in gaming because 6 core CPUs (from Intel) have been around for quite a while now.
8 cores are still relatively new, as sadly no one has really paid much attention to AMD's 8 core CPUs.
For longevity the 8 core will be the better solution, but in the market right now the hex with the higher clock will likely yield better results.
And yes, both and all and the 8320 will absolutely slaughter any I3, regardless of what the blue fanboys say.