Deacon_Jones1988
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2012
- Messages
- 159
Sorry about this: I know this is intel thread.
I got 5:25 @ 4.4Ghz
I got 5:25 @ 4.4Ghz
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Lets Frybench!
- Thread starter Skyscraper
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 2,116
that's actually not allowed. since it would make too much sense.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 7,367
Yea your right, a nearly 6 hundred dollar cpu vs a 200 dollar one is a much better comparison but i agree that a 4930K is nice chip by all means except price
Last edited:
and in 5 years from now, the 4930k will be sold for 50-100$
:-D
5:15 is rather low score for your 8350 at 4.4ghz. I completed it in 4:12 with the same cpu granted mines clocked at 5ghz. Seems like the difference should be a lot smaller. Think this benchmark weights on Memory/cache a lot.
:-D
5:15 is rather low score for your 8350 at 4.4ghz. I completed it in 4:12 with the same cpu granted mines clocked at 5ghz. Seems like the difference should be a lot smaller. Think this benchmark weights on Memory/cache a lot.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 7,367
Since its summer, i figured to test how well it would do with all power saving on...c states, speed step, core parking the works.....still managed a good score so i might as well keep the power savings on.
[/URL][/IMG]
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 6,478
Since its summer, i figured to test how well it would do with all power saving on...c states, speed step, core parking the works.....still managed a good score so i might as well keep the power savings on.
Kinda weird that Core Temp read your chip as X5660 at the same time that CPU-Z read it as X5670 with a different multiplier.. as a side note, it worth to keep all powersaving features.. i never overclock without keep all power saving features and offset voltage i like to keep my chip healthy
I've been out of overclocking for a while, so i've been tweaking the settings. Memory settings (1T, etc) seem to make little difference in time. Memory speed is next.
4790k @ 4.7ghz, DDR3@1866 9-9-9-24-1T
something wrong with your board? why it read as you are using PCI-E as x1 instead x16??
That's a good question. I just noticed it as I was posting that picture. Don't seem to have any problems in games or 3dmark. (16,200 in Firestrike)\
EDIT: Looks like some sort of throttling. GPU-Z shows fluctuation between 8x and 1x.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 6,478
check the BIOS, the power saving features can throttle up to PCI-E 1.1 but no change the PCI-E Lines.. its weird.. are always PCI-E 3.0 x1 to x8?..
Looks like between pci-e 3.0 8x and pci-e 1.1 1x
I'll check the bios.
EDIT: Looks like a common problem. Started the render test in gpu-z. Both GPU's are operating at pci-e 3 8x. Let it run like that for a few minutes and no fluctuation.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 7,367
Noticed that myself, if i had to guess its speed step confusing the software as never before has task manager reported the wrong cpu speed, but with speed step on is does...no biggie as i have tested it over and over and its defiantly jumping back to 4200mhz when the power is needed...because all the bench scores indicate as such...i don't even know if speed step really saves much power, but the bench scores indicate its not a problem
In the winter time i can justify turning off the power saving since it actually helps heat the room but know body in north america now needs any more heat right now
So some from my systems here:
This is a dual CPU, just forgot to open another instance of CPUZ. Precision T5600, I ran it even though it has multiple running VM environments in it, cant shut them down, but hey, screw it. 13:56... lol. Not a speed demon at all.
Another Dual, PE R620, not much running at all on it, 3:26.
Precision T1650, 5:30:
Lenovo x240, 14:51:
This is a dual CPU, just forgot to open another instance of CPUZ. Precision T5600, I ran it even though it has multiple running VM environments in it, cant shut them down, but hey, screw it. 13:56... lol. Not a speed demon at all.
Another Dual, PE R620, not much running at all on it, 3:26.
Precision T1650, 5:30:
Lenovo x240, 14:51:
Skyscraper
n00b
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2014
- Messages
- 63
My Xeon X5690s managed to beat the X5650s by like 2 seconds 
Conclusion: X5690 is not worth it on an EVGA SR-2, not that I diddnt know that before
Dual X5690 @ 4500 MHz
Rendertime 1m 40s
Conclusion: X5690 is not worth it on an EVGA SR-2, not that I diddnt know that before
Dual X5690 @ 4500 MHz
Rendertime 1m 40s
Yikes I won't even post my 6 min + time on my i7 920 @4Ghz. This is one bench where that $70 xeon 5650 looks too good to pass by. Now I'm just debating with myself whether spending more on the 5660 or 5670 is worth it for the extra multiplier or two over the 5650.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 6,478
every multi worth specially when you have to use large BCLK..
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 7,367
Since i kept using the same blk setting of 200, i really wasn't able to use the higher multiplier the 5670 has anyway. I just couldn't get mine 100% stable using the highest muli that the 5670 has and i wonder if i could have just saved money going with the 5660. course not every chip has the same potential and i really wanted as close to 5ghz as possible, but i ended up with a solid 4200mhz in the end. Possibly that higher multi will come in handy in the winter but so far its really only bench stable above that.
tldr. 5660 and 5670 should achieve the exact same clock speed stable if using 200blck
Yeah here's my deal. Probably going to do a cpu and gpu upgrade. Based on ebay prices its looking like I can do 5650 and dual 7970's for the same price as 5670 and dual 7950's. Really a toss up which way to go.
As you said primetime I might get a killer 5650 and be riding 4.2 or a dud 5670 and only get 4.2. Since I'm kinda maybe sorta leaning towards better gaming performance I'm probably leaning 5650 with Crossfire 7970's. But the cheap bastard in me might just go 5650 and 7950's as those suckers are going for less than $120 in some cases. Been out of the upgrade circle for more than a year so I'm reading up to see what's my best move. At some point this weekend I need to just get off the fence and go one way or the other.
I suppose at the end of the day xeon 56xx and crossfire 79xx will probably all end up in the same-ish ballpark. I mean 5650 + 2x 7950's is going to save me over $150 over a 5670 + 2 7970's set up and really how much worse off would I be?
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 7,367
the only slight change i might suggest is going for a single 290 vs 2 (79 hundred) series....if the 290 series was available when i was upgrading gpu's i would have went that route, especially if there were going for the prices they are now....those 290 triX (around 350 on sale) seem pretty sweet
Yeah but there are two ebay sellers both in my own town selling a pair of 7950's or 7970's for $220-250 respectively. Sure I might be able to snag a 290 for under $300 on ebay but XFire 79xx will still best 290 in almost ever game I'd play and leave money in my pocket.
Believe me though I looked at the 290 but I keep hearing of issues since I only have a PCI 2.0 mobo and there's my cheap bastard factor as well. No sales are final yet but 79xx is leading the race for me at this moment. Its the same mental gymnastics I do with the 5650 vs 5670 debate. Between now and Monday I'll make some decisions one way or the other.
Thanks for the input though I do appreciate it.
ccityinstaller
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 4,237
Not really sure WTF you have been reading, but there are probably 10K+ gamers in the world running 290/290X cards on PCI 2.0 MB's without a problem. Even an PCI-E 2.0 8X slot would be fine for a single 290. The only thing you *MIGHT* have an issue with is leaving 5~10% of the performance on the table if you are using an X-Fire setup without dual 16X (2.0) or dual X8 (3.0 same bandwidth) slots.
Makaveli@BETA
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2004
- Messages
- 2,433
He's knows what he is talking about you don't.
The issues he is referring too is with the 290/290x series and the X58 chipset. And since this thread is about the x58 chipset its relevant.
I believe AMD has fixed it now but it was a problem. When you talk about none x58 chipset that are pci 2.0 there was never a problem and there you would be correct.
ccityinstaller
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 4,237
I am sure of what I am taking about. There were a few *isolated* cases with X58 boards that were using old Bios releases. Many of those were also users running more then 1 card, ala Xfire. I'd like to point out that he didn't specify it being an X58 only problem, although this is a thread about benchmarking CPUs, not a GPU subforum, and NOT limited to X58 as you imply. Many boards need bios updates to work with certain GPUs, that doesn't mean it's a widespread failure of support. Hell my Z77 MPower in my sig got a BIOS release for AMD 7970/7790 cards in October 2013, nearly a year after those cards released, yet I ran a 7970 without an issue.
Actually on topic, I ran these back when the OP first requested it, but somehow must have forgotten to click submit when I went to post
..My CPU Vcore seems high due to the way MSI board implement Vdroop, and I waited for the render to finish, thus showing the high "idle voltage" (my systems stays loaded 24/7 unless I'm benchmarking. Cooling is full water (60mm thick 360mm and 45mm thick 230mm rads) with a XSPC Raystorm mounted on the bare die with CL LiquidPro..3770K @ 4.9Ghz, Ram @ 2133Mhz 11-11-11-24-2T (Full water with fans @ 5V) 3:54
3770K @ 5.1Ghz, Ram @ 2133Mhz 11-11-11-24-2T (Full water with fans @ 5V) 3:48
Last edited:
Sgraffite
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,405
Dual Xeon e5-2670
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 7,367
Dual Xeon e5-2670
dats one bad ass cpu setup you have!
i bet video encoding is blazing fastccityinstaller
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 4,237
dats one bad ass cpu setup you have!
You pretty much summed it up!
/dev/null
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2001
- Messages
- 15,181
I thought this thread was about FryBench?
Skyscraper
n00b
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2014
- Messages
- 63
I felt I had to improve my score just enough to keep up with these new monsters.
Matches Sgraffite's Dual Xeon e5-2670 score exactly lol nice job!
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 7,367
Like I just said in Cinebench I guess I never uploaded my pics onto [H].
So here
I didn't see the need for a full screen so I cropped the important stuff at the bottom
after seeing what you cpu is doing, if i ever need to order another one im just going to order the 5650 since yours is as good or better for half the cost
after seeing what you cpu is doing, if i ever need to order another one im just going to order the 5650 since yours is as good or better for half the cost
Yeah really I think the averages all end up in the same neighborhood. Perhaps I have an above average 5650 compared with some other 5670's. But I think the assumption that 5670's will reach higher speeds than 5650's isn't a complete lock down truth. Lots of factors like mobo, ram, the cpu itself, cooling and pure luck factor in. The higher multi's of the 5660 and 5670 are frankly the main advantage over the 5650. But yeah I'm 24/7 with 4.5Ghz and I can run everything at 4.6Ghz just kinda takes me to the limits of what I'm comfortable with voltage wise so 4.5 is good for me.
That's some high clocks for a westmere core cpu. Don't most top out around 4ghz? The heat and power consumption is even higher than the AMD FX processors at that speeds and voltage. There are certainly not power efficient cpus. They didn't fix that until sandy bridge.
I've been thinking about getting a dual 5660 rig.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 6,478
depending on the model they can average 4.7-4.8ghz with 1.40-1.45Vcore under a custom water loop you can see they can go easy to 1.5v and 5ghz and still be safe, those xeons have a max voltage of 1.52v by intel recommendations to 95W chips.. 130W chips can go up to 1.7v under a serious water loop for example the Xeon X5690..
about power a for example X5670 at 4.2ghz still topped at 95W under prime or IBT.. not so much difference from for example my ivy which at 4.5ghz draws 80W under prime pr IBT
I'm laughing at your power consumption numbers. Something tells me you didn't actually measure your consumption
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 6,478
I'm laughing at your power consumption numbers. Something tells me you didn't actually measure your consumption
X5660@4.2ghz IBT
X5670@4.2ghz IBT/LinX
X5660@4.2ghz IBT
X5670@4.2ghz IBT/LinX
that is not how you measure power consumption.....