Intel Sandy-EP/EX 3.0 8/16 LGA 2011 bench score interest?

A

Archangel7

n00b
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
57
I have the processor that you all have probably seen being sold or otherwise discussed in other forums. Its a 3.0 Xeon Sandy Bridge-E5 150w TDP 8 cores/16 thread LGA 2011 Intel confidential. I have run it through its paces, and I have to say I am impressed. Unfortunately, I went with a ASRock extreme9 board for my build, assuming that since it was built specifically for overclocking, it would not differ from the other boards, such as Asus, that have a strap for the PCI lane. I was able to get the FSB up to 106.5, but anything over that would give me the video card error 43. I ran Sandra, and it almost beat out a i7-3930k oc'ed to 5ghz in almost every category, for example 3930k scored 228.51 GIPS/Xeon 226.25;161.12/159.86; Xeon 46.226gb/s integer and 46.425 gb/s float, there was no score for the other system to compare, but that score was obtained with 1984mhz for mem, even though rated for 2133mhz. Why the lower clock, because ASRock did not think that an overclocking board built on a platform that allows the CPU, MEM; and PCI to be run at different clock speeds needed it. It is kinda funny though, as I am facing the same issue I used to back in the day when the only way you could oc was by adjusting FSB, and even more hilarious that it was only the engineering samples that came with unlocked multipliers. Hell thats one of the main reasons, AMD chips were preferred to Intel. Now I have an ES that is locked, the retail version which is not, and still having to cope with the lack of PCI clamp. The irony will probably excape you unless you were oc'ing ten years ago.
 
I have a 3930 on and extreme 4 try setting it to 125 blc as that should get you to the higher strap at lest it does on my and cpu
 
Please, please run lots of benches comparing the 8 core ES to the 3930K. Please!!! Also, subscribed.
 
I tried the 125 Blck, along with various voltage tweaks and different BLCk, and none worked. As I understand the notation of the FSB Host Clock field in bios, if the BLCK is 112, or less, PCI is strapped to 100.anything greater than 112 to 130 something is strapped to 133. Not one review went into oc'ing in any detail, and all reviewers simply raised the multiplier. I was thinking it could be a built in limitation of the processor, because raising the BLCK brings the processor to 3.3 pre turbo boost. But then I booted at 107, and my video driver failed to load, and a 43 error came up indicating a problem with video card. I sent an email to ASRock, but have not received a reply. I forgot to mention that EZOC is no longer a selection available to me in new bios 1.9. it was present in the orignal 1.8, but no longer. I can only increase the multiplier to 33, anything over and it automatically defaults to 3.3. So it is possible that Xeon chips, or at least this particular ES batch,are dealt with differently in the bios and by the chipset. I would have liked to at least seen an option to strap manually, and some certainty as to the PCIE bus, so that I could at least not have to worry about my video card. I would be very happy with a 125mhz oc, but alas I do not think this chip and/or board is going to allow. But still pleased with the cpu, as I use my puter for work and play. Definite provides better performance than the 990x and 2700k, so no worries.


Alright, gonna try and do this in brief

Test System:

ASRock Extreme9 x79
Engineering Sample version of Xeon Model 2687W (3.0 as opposed to 3.1)
TDP 150W 8 cores/16T.
Crucial Ballistix 2133 4x2gb Quad Channel Config
Kingston Hyper X 120gb SSD
Ultra X4 1050w
Asus GTX 590

I captured some of the different clock variants that occur during testing:
Idle: Freq : 1275.66 MHz (106.3 * 12) http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2188074
Mid: Freq : 3401.59 MHz (106.3 * 32) http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2188074
High: Freq : 3508 MHz (106.3 * 33) http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2188074

The only way to get the CPU to use a 33 multiplier is by enabling turbo, otherwise manual oc you are limited to 3.1.
You get an extra 200mhz bump just as with the x58 and locked processors.

Comparison Scores: I have taken data from a review of the ASRock Extreme9 paired with a 3960x Freq : 3599.94 MHz (100 * 36)(Correction here, as it appears the benches were done with cpu clocked at 4.8 oc, as the numbers dont jive), by kitguru.net. I also have data from Sandra of the 3930k clocked at 5ghz, and 3960x clocked at 4.5. The 2687W is rated at 150w TDP, but heat was never an issue, as even at full load prime, the voltage did not exceed 1.21-5.
Temps never rose above 55c at full load. Idle, the temps are around 35c.
As you will note from the following scores, I was forced to downclock memory to 2ghz, due to FSB limitation.





2687W 3D Mark 11 Score:

3DMark Score P9664
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Graphics Score 9343
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Physics Score 13951
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Combined Score 8034

See http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2504205


Comparison of same board taken from review, note that two gtx 590 are being used, so gpu scores are off, but CPU score is what I am looking at.

3960x 3D Mark 11 Score:

3DMark Score P15750
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Graphics Score 18331
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Physics Score 12442
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Combined Score 9505



PCMark 7: [email protected]: 4785
[email protected]: 5026



See http://www.kitguru.net/components/motherboard/zardon/asrock-x79-extreme9-motherboard-review/10/



Here is all the data from 3930k oc'ed to 5ghz and 3960x oc'ed to 4.5ghz which I could find in the Sandra database.
You can find other scores to compare in the review above, and I did not note them below, but they are there.


Sandra Arithmetic:

3930k@5ghz: 228.51 GIPS 161.12 GFLOPS
[email protected]: 225.67 GIPS; 161.16 GFLOPS



Sandra Multimedia:

[email protected]: Integer 379.89;
Float 285.56

No data for others, but kitguru does show comparison to 3960x.

Sandra Memory: Integer 46.439GB/s
Float 46.563GB/s

*No info on 3930k, 3960x at kitguru.


Sandra Cache Bandwidth:

[email protected]: 249.836GB/s
3930k@5ghz: 248.888GB/s
[email protected]: 243.831GB/s

Speed factor (respectively): 31.7
34.2
27.0

I thought much more info was in the Sandra database.
 
Last edited:
Cinebench 11.5 Score: 12.48 cpu; 47.06 fps OpenGL. Ranked Number 1 and 2 respectively, at least according to the program. I dont see any SB-E retail showing up though.
 
12.48 is quite respectable. My overclocked 3930k @4.5ghz scores a 13.05. I'm one of those people who would prefer a 12.48 stock than OC but anything over 12 is awesome.
 
I am glad people are finding the info valuable.

The chip is awesome at stock speeds, system is totally stable, nothing glitching, etc..So I should be very pleased. But there is that devil in me that wants to crank it up to see what it can do, and I never thought I would be saying this, but there is something disappointing about having a 150w TDP chip that you cant even get to exceed 60c fully loaded, and only draws 1.20 volts.
 
Any more benches? Can you do AIDA64 cache and memory benchmarks so we can take a gander at the memory subsystem's performance?
 
WOW big numbers! This makes me excited for the Ivy Bridge E parts 8 cores at 5GHz+ please.
 
Sure, no problem. Not up an running at the moment, as I am hooking up a controller to my cooling system as a final touch. 8 cores at 5 ghz would be phenomenal.:)
 
tunatime said:
I have a 3930 on and extreme 4 try setting it to 125 blc as that should get you to the higher strap at lest it does on my and cpu
Click to expand...

How is GPU stability at 125? I was thinking of running that but I am not sure. I would like to reduce my multiplier a little as it tends to reduce heat output. I also understand that a bclck that high tends to boost performance of GPU's generally due to added bus speed.
 
Latency 60.2 ns
Read 15525 MB/s
Write 13252 MB/s
Copy 15836 MB/s

Running 32gb all 8 banks x 4gb Quad DDR3-1984 11-11-11-30 CR2

Note: Not going to wow anyone with these scores, but utilizing all banks, in addition to not being able to run the memory at 2133 it is difficult to compensate for loss of speed at the above timings. Previous bench marks were using 4x2gb at much tighter timings. Sandra score dropped to a score equivalent to triple channel.
 
Thanks! Any chance you can get us the L3 cache numbers, too? I'm very curious if the size increase from 15MB to 20MB from SNB-E to SNB-EP adds latency!
 
I provided Sandra scores above, were you looking for something else? Latency is going to be an issue, as the 20mb is shared across 8 cores, rather than 15 across 6. The ratio is the same 2.5 to 1.

Correction: Just noted that I did not provide cache latency, just bandwidth, but question still remains. Is there any particular bench tests you wish to see?
 
ASrocks support for LGA 2011 Xeon Processors are very good. For around 2 weeks, ASrock test a 6Core Xeon with a Bclk from 120MHz /1.25 Strap and it works.



I test another Xeon in C0 Stepping with 8C/16T, but the Strap doesn`t work.



CPU (all Cores): 3600MHz
CPU Turbo: 3800MHz
2 Cores: 4000MHz
 
Thumbnail pics are too small, cannot make out what you are attempting to show. I have resolved myself to the fact that it is not the board, but the processor itself. Even though it puzzles me how it could work on one cpu and not the next given that the x79 chip is what controls the strap. It seems that many of the boards have trouble using it.
 
Click on the picture to enlarge. The Pictures shows you that a Xeon ES 6C/12T for X79 are not locked over the Bclk (120MHz).. but 8C/16T are locked. In tested all cores with 4GHz (in stock voltage) it works :)
So now we need a update..

posting in hwbot.org

So far from what I have read on forums, gear/strap 125, 166 or whatever doesnt work with Xeon E5.
4 different guys, 4 different chips, 4 different motherboards, 4 different bios.
No one managed to use another strap than the default 100, 1:1, 1.0.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Archangel7 said:
I tried the 125 Blck, along with various voltage tweaks and different BLCk, and none worked. As I understand the notation of the FSB Host Clock field in bios, if the BLCK is 112, or less, PCI is strapped to 100.anything greater than 112 to 130 something is strapped to 133. Not one review went into oc'ing in any detail, and all reviewers simply raised the multiplier. I was thinking it could be a built in limitation of the processor, because raising the BLCK brings the processor to 3.3 pre turbo boost. But then I booted at 107, and my video driver failed to load, and a 43 error came up indicating a problem with video card. I sent an email to ASRock, but have not received a reply. I forgot to mention that EZOC is no longer a selection available to me in new bios 1.9...
Click to expand...

Please ignore my PM. I see that you have the latest bios upgrade (v.1.9) for your ASRock. I truly, truly feel your pain.

P.S. Got BCLK 108 working for 24+ hrs. of AIDA64 stress testing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top