The 8 core Intel thread.

[ALXAndy]

OK so I decided to start a new thread. Basically this is for threading/usage.

If any one is bonkers enough to to 8 core Haswell E, let us know how you get on.

I've ordered an 8 core Ivy as per the other threads, and just found a Gigabyte UD3 for £55 delivered. So I will be benching pretty hard to see what sort of core use I get. I'll also be comparing it to Sandy E and a good clocking FX 8320.

More to come soon.

 

[ALXAndy]

It's low clocked Xeon.

You'd almost never buy one.

I did

Yeah basically it's an 8 core 16 thread Ivybridge CPU with a max mutli of 23.

I know the BCLK does not strap, so high clocks are out. I should be able to get 108-110 from the FSB though.

What I'm more interested in is core use, and how it fares compared to an AMD 8 core CPU.

 

[ALXAndy]

What is the exact CPU?

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-522-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=1823

Or.

http://ark.intel.com/products/75267/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2640-v2-20M-Cache-2_00-GHz

Only instead of 2.5ghz it's clocked to 2.3.

 

[ALXAndy]

"If any one is bonkers enough to to 8 core Haswell E"

You say that you have just ordered an 8 core Ivy so that makes you bonkers too by your theory.

Hey if you know where to get 8 core Haswell E for £110 then do let us know mate.

As for the AMD thing? pah. Tell you what, I'll leave AMD out of it completely. It's more a test to see how the latest games and so on thread with lots of cores.

AMD nut. Yeah, whatever

Core nut? certainly.

 

[ALXAndy]

You were also trolling and flaming in the same thread.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18601792

Probably the same person. Goodbye.

I thought you weren't posting any more? that's an awful lot of posting for some one who isn't posting.

And you call me a troll?

Do us a favour and do one eh? this thread was not posted to troll anything. In fact, it's me spending my time to provide information that could prove to be very important..

I wasn't talking to you in the latter part of my post, but it seems you're unable to deal with a post that addresses more than one person.

I'm still running a Westmere Xeon rig with a pair of 670s in SLI and I've noticed no ills when playing the latest games. So, I will have to get FRAPS on it and include that in the testing too before it gets shipped to its new owners. The Westmere only clocks at 1.78ghz on all 6 cores.

 

[ALXAndy]

For gaming you'd never pick the chip in the OP over a 4770K. At 2.3GHZ (It being an Ivy Octo core) it'll be less powerful overall than your 4770K at 4.6GHZ. In fact it should never beat a 4.6GHZ 4770K.

Of course. Clock speed is always what matters, because it's rare to see all 16 threads in full use.

I'm under no illusions here, my 3970x will wipe the floor with it. I get 4.8ghz on a H110 with perfectly acceptable temps, even in this heat wave we've been having.

However, what I am more interested in is core use. We're just about to get the holy grail from Intel (well, most of it any way) in that they're finally releasing an 8 core CPU that allows overclocking.

I'm pretty convinced that once core use goes up the 8 core Ivy will make for a fine gaming CPU. I'm already running a hex core Westmere with 670 SLI and tbh? doesn't game any differently to a lot of my other CPUs. It never breaks 30c though, which is nice.

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/processors/intel-xeon-e5-2687w-1074013/review

About sums it up. Intel = you can have the cores but not the clocks, or, you can have the clocks but not the cores.

That's (sort of) about to change though. I mean sure, we still won't get the ten core or twelve core CPU unlocked but things are changing.

As for picking X I7 over the 8 core? I just spent £165 all in on the 8 core and a board to run it in. IIRC the I7 4770k is what? £240? £250?

Unless the 8 core is a complete and utter flop it will be replacing my 8320. Which means I can then take the 120mm rad fans off and instead of running them at 12v run them at 5-7v meaning the rig will be about half as noisy as it is now, with a reduced power consumption. Fact is? I will get more than £165 for an 8320 that easily does 4.9ghz and a CHVFZ.

 

[ALXAndy]

As opposed to AMD where you can have the cores (which is debatable as they aren't conventional cores) and the clocks but performance is mediocre anyway, at least with Intel you get real 6-8 core performance and not a 'pseudo 8 core' that performs more like a quad.

I cannot see that Xeon being any better than an overclocked FX8320 personally but then you probably know that and are probably just angling to have a bash at Intel 8 cores and promote AMD based on your inevitable findings.

God how did you know?

You know, you're absolutely right ! I've bought an Intel 8 core because I want to show that my 8320 can beat it..

Fudge, totally busted huh?

Where you come up with this twaddle is just beyond me. What I want to know is how the cores are used, and, to what ends they make a difference. Why? Intel are about to launch an 8 core. So maybe if you like, shut up and just take in some information you may find it helpful?

Cat is about right. I spent £350 on my 3970x which was cheap in terms of what they still cost new (£850 or so) and spent £230 for a board to put it in. That's a far cry from my posh AMD rig which cost me £110 for the CPU and £159 for the CHVFZ.

You're totally, utterly and unequivocally missing he point.

The point here is core use. Whilst one of my Intel rigs (the big bad monster) cost me a small fortune the 8 core didn't. And I have a sweet rig to house it in too, 7990 ETC.

You seem to think I go around bashing on people and trolling. I don't ! I just know my onions and I know what I'm talking about.

If we can garner some facts on core use it will be interesting reading.

Maybe if you stopped playing detective and stopped with these outrageous ideas of what I'm up to you can learn something.

TBH? if this works out well (and I have a suspicion it will) then I will only have one AMD rig left (after I sell the 8320 and board) and that's a £30 Athlon.

Which also makes for a cracking little game rig with the GTX 480 Lightning it has inside it.

 

[ALXAndy]

Well there's the whole ECC argument, and, overclocking on a server being a bit risky.

 

[ALXAndy]

The only part of this thread I am even remotely interested in is the £110 8 core Xeon.

Where did that come from?

Would be nice to upgrade my old workstation to one... It currently has a pair of E5430's (quad core 2.66GHz socket 771 chips)

hehe auction site.

It should be here today if the seller is a man of his word. Board was dispatched last night, so shouldn't be long now.

TBH after the fun I had with the 6 core Westmere ES I'm really looking forward to this. The Westmere had a lame clock and I couldn't overclock it (1.78ghz on all cores loaded) but tbh? with 670 SLI it absolutely roars. I was soooo surprised how well it ran games, especially stuff like Watchdogs and Metro : Last Light.

When I get the Ivy all set up I am going to run a second screen which I can snapshot to show core use. I will do it for everything.. Asus Realbench covers handbrake and GIMP etc, I will run the games and see what happens over the 16 threads.

Whilst people may think it's a waste of time it may prove very valuable to those wanting to spend £900 on the 8 core Haswell E.

 

[ALXAndy]

You can make a powerful workstation with Xeon's, but the Xeon in the OP is far from "powerful" on its own as cheaper chips will outperform it.

In a crude form yes.

However, you're forgetting many traits of the Xeon here. Firstly, they have the second QPI unlocked, so you can run two. That means up to 24 cores and 48 threads. At which point no 4770k can touch them.

Intel make sure you pay for it mind.

But the point is threads. I've never ever rated CPUs on software that doesn't support them. The only fair way to judge them is on their full merit, not by running software that deliberately avoids half of what they offer.

IPC is not important. Core count, and support, is important. Because of the position Intel are in they have been calling the shots. IE - "Here look, have our quad core CPU because IPC is all that matters !" - it isn't, not to me.

What I want is IPC, plus cores, plus support. I want it all and I don't want Intel dictating to me what they think I want. It's a typical trick of a corporation, tell people what they want.

At last they are releasing an 8 core CPU that's sort of mainstream. I mean, it isn't strictly mainstream because it goes in a ridiculous socket and costs ridiculous money, but Intel are going to have to do a complete Uturn now. No longer can they play the IPC card if they are charging £900 for an 8 core CPU. Now it comes down to cores and support for those cores.

And tbh? it's about the only avenue Intel have left now. As predicted they have hit a brick wall when it comes to gains and shrinks, so now they need to start offering out more cores.

And, with any luck that means support. So these Enterprise chips will slowly trickle down into the enthusiast sector, then into the regular desktop sector. And that means that it won't be just Cinebench for example that uses them properly.

8 Ivybridge cores with 8 HTs, even at the 2.3ghz (and 2.5ghz I should get if I tinker with the FSB) should be immensely powerful.

 

[ALXAndy]

Right, I'm back from holiday 1...

OK, CPU arrived, board arrived. Had to run up the high street like no one should to get to the PO in time to get the CPU before they closed for the day (Saturday) but got it.

Board and CPU work fine, even on the old bios. Have updated it now. Have spent the past two days rebuilding the rig and gathering data.

The upshot is this.

I can't overclock the BCLK *at all* not even 101mhz. Pretty disappointed about that, was hoping to get at least 150mhz over stock.

The Intel beats the AMD at 4.7ghz by about 5-10%. Up the AMD's clock to 4.9ghz however and it turns the tables by 5-10%. However, in order to beat the Intel it *must* be ran at 4.9ghz and with the weather the way it was lately I had to literally take the PC apart and aim a floor standing fan into it to stop it from shutting down.

There are things the AMD wins at at either clock speed, and there are one or two things the Intel wins at no matter what the clock speed.

Data to come soon, though I will be concentrating on the 4.9ghz results as otherwise it was just too much data to sort out. I am now moved on to core use and threading, with some very interesting results thus far.

I'm slowly beginning to build a mental picture of what Haswell E will be like, though. And like I said in the other thread it's all going to come down to how much support Intel can muster up for it. Without it? you'll be better off with a I5.

 

[ALXAndy]

Try looking at his post history. I rest my case.

You can't blame him for buying some Intel processors they are just better as it stands but being an AMD fanboy he won't admit to it. He's top poster in the Haswell-E thread but all he has really done is try to put people off buying it.

Have a good look through my posts. They're usually in response to trolling blanket posters like yourself.

In your eyes there is only one product. Only one manufacturer. The other one? haha ! that's just a way to sit and score points all day.

If you actually read what I posted instead of shrugging it off you may learn something.

"They are just better". That's exactly the sort of BS I am referring to. It's funny, because on other parts of the internet and other forums people are actually intelligent enough to digest information and make their own well researched decisions but here? jesus, it contains more nonsense spouting trolls than any other forum I post on.

I just call things as they are. Haswell E = Haswell with more cores, running a CPU that Intel have been selling for years only £900 finally gets you a CPU that has 8 cores *and* you can overclock. And Intel should be lauded for that... Why?

If they did great things then they would get the praise they rightly deserved. But they don't, and they haven't since the Clarkdales. Ever since then they've gone around with their padlock railroading people into stupidly expensive products that yeah, are faster than AMD but define better? oh yeah a CPU that costs over double and yet doesn't even go near offering double the performance.

See, troll, when I put a CPU in a rig and begin testing it I do it open eyes and open mind. I run the tests, watch what happens. So I just saw an AMD beat a chip Intel were charging £1000 for. Oh no, the Intel lost. Why? because the Intel is locked.

Don't tell me ! that's the reason huh? the Intel is locked and so can't put up a fair fight for itself.

Whose fault is it?

That would be Intel's.

Do you see?

But no don't worry, they're about to make it all OK by releasing a £900 CPU.

And I'm supposed to be peeing my pants, why?

 

[ALXAndy]

Unsurprisingly I was right about a 4770K at 4.4GHZ beating the Ivy 8 Core 2GHZ (Although it was simple logic), I figured I'd take a peak at your results you've just posted Andy.

Yeah no surprises tbh dude. However, have a look at this...



13.9 watts at idle, even though I have disabled speedstep and forced on the 4 bin turbo to make it run at a constant 2ghz.

It's also pretty much dead neck and neck with the AMD @ 4.9ghz, and that consumes about three times the power. Which means I've been able to drop all of my intake and rad fans to 5v meaning the rig hasn't really changed, but now makes pretty much no noise at all.

Will sort out the results and info soon. Gotta say though, you'll be amazed at how many games use all of the 16 threads.

 

[ALXAndy]

Haswell made some gains in FP performance, so Cinebench sees some much higher gains that it would over Ivy usually.

Strange to refer to an Ivy as lack of IPC, still the second highest IPC in the world.

What use is it if a game can use 16 threads but end up coming up trumps to a 4690K? (Which I assume the Xeon will in most except extreme cases as far as gaming goes).

And which of those games that use 16 threads are merely load balancing (Since you've got 8 slow cores)?

I recall running the Metro Last Light benchmark oo, about a year ago. A mate of mine was running a 3770k, overclocked, the AMD put out a higher FPS count.

I ran it on the AMD before removing it, then ran it on the Intel. The Intel won. Not by a massive margin, but it won. The game saturates the entire 16 threads..

I guess that it basically comes down to making yourself a match. There's an age old article on Eurogamer that basically has the devs come out and say that you're better off with an 8 core CPU, ignoring the clock speed (because it will slaughter the console counterpart) and just doing your best to match up the spec of your PC to the spec of the consoles (cores and a shed load of VRAM).

TBH Martini I really don't know what CPU is beating what here. At the end of the day what matters (like, what really matters) is that a CPU can put up a show for itself and run a game smoothly at an acceptable FPS rate. Once it does that? then anything else is pretty much splitting hairs.

I recently switched out a 4.4ghz AMD for a 1.78ghz hex core Westmere. This time I did not bother running untold benchmarks, I just plopped the rig down in front of the telly and invited the guests to play what games they wanted. It puts up a marvelous show, especially considering it's running SLI 670s. But the point is that basically this £48 CPU is more than good enough for gaming, especially when it's threaded properly.

Whether or not that makes it worth spending £900 on an overclockable Intel? tbh, no, it's not. That's probably why Intel concentrate more on Z97 than they did on X79, for example.

I'm already starting the basis of some predictions on what sort of benchmark results Haswell E will put out. Mind blowing for sure, but whether or not the price matches the performance? can't see it. Intel aren't exactly known for giving away Easter Eggs.

/Ray Liotta, Goodfellas..

"You want cores? **** you, pay me".

 

[ALXAndy]

We were both running GTX 670 SLI at the time. The AMD was at 4.8ghz, his 3770k was at 4.6 (which is his limit, got a duff chip).

Looking at the chart you posted stock there is about 5 FPS in it. But overclocked.. Things change. At stock the 8320 loses around 40% of its Cinebench R15 score..

I'm still compiling data on core use. Two more games to go should about do it. At least then it'll settle the "But hardly any games can use more than 4 cores" argument.

Ed. I guess what it came down to was overclocking headroom. The AMD has far more of it from the stock speed to the max overclock than the Intels do. Maybe that was why.

 

[ALXAndy]

Your maths is failing you.
4GHZ to 4.8GHZ is less overclocking than 3.5GHZ to 4.6GHZ.

In total overclock and percentage, how is that in anyway more headroom to the FX83?

Also, when overclocked each to 4.5GHZ, their figures are 13 FPS difference to the advantage of the 3770K.

You could post 10 games using more than 4 cores, in the grand scheme of things, that's still "hardly any games". Bearing in mind in total I have around 500 myself (432 on Steam, some on Origin, and then discs). Even 50 games is 10% of my library, that's still "hardly any games use more than 4 cores".

Your knowledge fails you. The 8320 is a 3.7ghz CPU. It only boosts one core to 4ghz, so that happens pretty much never.

It's the same on my Xeon. Says it has a max multi of 23, so 2.3ghz, then you see this..



Hence, the AMD can do 1.2ghz fully bench stable over its original stock clock. Is there 1.2ghz left in the tank on 3770k? I doubt it.

That's what I was getting at dude.

Ed. Sorry, still crunching loads of data :S

Going back to the core argument. I can post you oo, at least ten games that are using them. And yeah, ten games is still a small amount, but the important part to garner is that they are the last ten games launched for the PC with any clout. All of the big titles, all of the big franchises. That says a lot for the future. It's not like they're going to change their mind and relinquish core support is it?

 

[ALXAndy]

It probably doesn't explain the disparity no. PCs are strange beasts at the best of times, and results vary tremendously from one reviewer to another. Tiny **** logan usually ends up with results that match up to no one else. Maybe because he's trapped in the past using Windows 7?

I find it funny that people are running quad + HT CPUs and insisting on an OS that doesn't even handle their CPU properly.

I also know that apparently SLI hilariously works better on AMD than Crossfire does. Was reading about it on Tom's..

 

[ALXAndy]

so basically intel beats AMD, no surpise...given that he CPU you chose is not very extreme and designed for servers running low spec but many many things at once...

Whilst the cpu costs more you can pretty much gaurrantee of low power cost and long life span and reliability and low low temps in tight spaces. pretty much what a server needs...

AMD at 4.9 is an oven whats the point...you can't run a server on that 7/7 365/365

Yes you could. Server rooms are usually air conditioned. Chip would have no bother running at that speed if it can make it through Prime95 and all of the other tests I ran on it to make sure it was stable.

And the Intel didn't beat the AMD, so not sure why you seem to be confused. In fact, in certain tests the AMD absolutely wiped the floor with it.

Clock speed, locked, low voltage - not my problem. Don't even try blaming that on me. £750 CPU. That would be down to Intel who obviously think that it's worth that sort of money (hint, it's not even worth the £110 I paid for it speaking purely from performance terms).

AMD still do quite well in the server sector, simply doing what they do everywhere else. Great value products that more than fit the purpose.

 

[ALXAndy]

In a server room surly low tdp (and heat) is more important than ever
Less refrigeration etc

Tdp is one thing in a desktop where it doesn't matter. But lots of these together is going to cost.

Do you know how hot the Quadro cards based on Fermi used to get?

 

[ALXAndy]

The Xeon versus an overclocked FX83 isn't clear cut like that, the Intel would need to be utilising all 16 threads to be competitive. When it's using 8 or less? It's not going to be winning.

Which is pretty much why I said like last week, "You'd almost never pick this Xeon", and I'd pick the FX83 over it, pretty much every day of the week.

Even when all 16 threads are used the results are still pretty much the same across the board, thanks to the derped clock speed.

Now I wouldn't mind if -

Intel did not sell 2ghz 8 core 16c chips for £750

They were overclockable, at least a little bit (say, 500mhz)

But they're not, they're real CPUs and they lose to a £110 CPU.

TBH though? I've picked the Xeon. Few reasons really...

You don't need a massive CPU any more. Not unless you're either benching or running a ridiculous GPU set up (and even then a 3970x more than accommodates a couple of Titans) and the Ivy uses absolutely no power (95w but I've not seen it go anywhere near that yet) and generates very little heat. After my time with the Westmere hex that only ran at 1.78ghz and liking how it never broke 35c I'm kinda fond of it.

I'm also prepared to gamble on core support, threading and so on. It's pretty apparent to me that the article about console ports is well in motion, so there's no point running a 'gas guzzler' any more.

It's also not my rig, so the noise would have had my lady ripping her hair out.

I'm finally done grabbing data now. If I can find time tomorrow I will post the results, but it's far more of a "How many cores can one use" scenario than the "Watch my AMD scream its guts out to beat a £750 CPU". I've not ran a ton of comparisons. I'm far more interested in paving the way for 8 core CPUs and how well they are supported (and will be into the future).