Hi guys, what is better option Lynnfield i5 750 cpu or Intel Xeon x3440 ?
what do you think ?
Printable View
Hi guys, what is better option Lynnfield i5 750 cpu or Intel Xeon x3440 ?
what do you think ?
3440 has HT, therefore it is better.
Yeah the xeon have HT and 750 dont have it, but which of the two is more oc ?Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
Why do you need a higher clock speed?Quote:
Originally Posted by darthcani
I'd still go with the Xeon, you can always disable HT on it to get a higher speed... :cool:
Thanks, im wait to see same sample of this xeon in XS lands for see how far can get :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Linuxfan
Xeon should be better, and Im sure you know that. They are colder than the common cpus and they are supposed to do higher clocks also.
About Hyperthreading, as far it doesnt put up your temps high, you should use it. That is for sure.
And also take HT into account if you are going to use you cpu for video/audio encoding, etc. Because it becomes useful, it get down your times in a really notiaceable way.
Taking all that things considered, Xeon would be better whatever you do.
Wow the price is just right for this processor.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Osterman
The newer programs are optimized for hyperthreading... And for those programs it will speed them up a lot for you to have it! :up:
+2 :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Osterman
just bought my X3460 from Germany ... :D
lol Well as far as I can see I spoke for everyone! :D
Im looking forward to getting a Xeon for my rig, but is difficult to find one with a good batch...
when I bought my Xeon, everybody said... bad choice, the xeon are the same core that the i7 920s,is not worth the extra money (15 U$S), but now everyone wants Xeon ... big rolleyes :D
Its pretty impressive what a lack of information can make people say...
Your post is more like SPAM than more other thing, Xeon w3520 compared with the i7 920 have less difference that i5 750 - Xeon X3440, i7 920 an Xeon w3520 both have HT both can rise to 4 ghz // 4.2 with no problems but i5 750 no have HT and Xeon yes thats is one of the most important difference, mate you have to think a litte more before post :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by foronoob
Quote:
Originally Posted by darthcani
no all the Lynnfield's Xeons haven't the HT ... :)
http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?id...29,42931,42932,
http://www.siliconmadness.com/2009/0...ates-xeon.html
anyway you're right on the Bloomfield's Xeons ;)
I am talking about X 3440 only , theres is others lynnfield xeons that no have HT :DQuote:
Originally Posted by KURTZ
OK, so we are totally agreed :DQuote:
Originally Posted by darthcani
edit. ps. check the L3426 ... really impressive!
Can you post some result of your rig ? share share !! :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by KURTZ
in the next days dude, i'm waiting the processor from Germany ... next week you can see everything ... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by darthcani
Nice ! im waiting for a few shots :DQuote:
Originally Posted by KURTZ
New chip... just starting out. (18x200 with a quick Prime blend)
http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/v...EVGAp55FTW.png
I can do default multi (19) x200 with more volts but my cooler can't keep the temps under control after about 10+ min. when running 8 threads of Prime.
I'm currently having trouble getting the turbo multi (x20) to function at all... even at stock/default settings?
I just got my p55 mobo, considering this chip but the i5 750 is only $170 and the i7 860 is $240 at Mircrocenter so I'm torn.
grab this chip dude ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by shiznit93
@PolRoger: what cooling?
I started with the Enzotech Ultra-X (one fan) it could handle 3.6 but not Prime@3.8. I'm now testing a TRUE black with two fans in push/pull... temps seem a little better and I'm back testing at 3.8. The native 775 back plates for the these coolers are not a good fit on this board. I'm looking forward to getting proper 1156 bracket adapters when they become available.Quote:
Originally Posted by KURTZ
OK, waiting feed-back about your coolers ... :) however if we compare your chip with this 860 (cooled by a CM TX3):Quote:
Originally Posted by PolRoger
http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/1449/200x18.th.jpg
your vCC seems to be a little higher ... but your Ts are better ... maybe you can put your vCC down or not?
I have one question to new users of xeon x3440, this model of xeon can rise 4 ghz ? or 3.8 is the limit for 24/7 ?
I had my X3440 up to 4ghz, but the mobo fried. I think 4ghz will be easy, but not sure how much higher it would go. 4GHz is fine with me from 2.53.
I am using a Megahalem RevB; comes with the new universal intel mounting system, but kind of expensive$60 plus shipping. very nice cooler and worth the money IMO.
The 3440 is the first of the p55 line to have HT. I bought mine for $234-8% CB=$215.28. Can't be beat for the price unless you buy a 920 from MC for approx $215 after taxes
EDIT: off topic, what mobos you guys running? My UD2 bit the dust because of my stupidity(did not put heatsinks on the pwm mosfets I think thats what they are called); I would like to stay under $150. I am trying to buy from a local store but limited and most seem out of my range. For a $150-$200 board would have been better to go with a 920.
for $150 I can get UD4 micro or asus P55D
for $170 I can get evga LE or P55D-Pro.
or suck it up and wait till mid week and order online? END Edit
Thanks for your answer, now i have a i5 750 but im thinking move to X3440 to reach easily 4 ghz and the plus of HT, i have eVGA P55 FTW nice lay out :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by INFRNL
Thanks and good luck with your build.
The FTW is more than I spend on my 920 rigs. I might try the LE, but not sure yet. I might need sli for gpugrid, but not neccessarily. for now i will only be running 1 gpu till I get more money and upgrade the PSU
You re welcome , in my opinion is better option one gpu and you spend more to upgrade to better psu like Corsair 850HX :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by INFRNL
I might be able to drop vcore down a little more... I'm still trying to get a feel for the voltage behavior on this new rig. How much VTT were you using?Quote:
Originally Posted by KURTZ
@darthcani: I still can't use the (x20) turbo multi with my setup. It sure would be nice to have for trying to get to 4.0 and I'm not so sure that I would want to run the voltages needed for 4.0 24/7 on air. I think running 4.0 with hyperthreading is a more diffulcult task to achieve than 4.0 on a i750.
Here is a quick prime shot at 3.8 using a TRUE cooler with push/pull fans. Voltages had to scale quite a bit for the additional 200Mhz.
http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/v...5FTW19x190.png
Have you considered the GIGABYTE P55-UD4P (~$170)? I think a good power supply section on a M/B is well worth the extra $ spent especially if you are going to overclock.Quote:
Originally Posted by INFRNL
Do you remember how much voltage you were using to get 4.0?
1.19 :)Quote:
Originally Posted by PolRoger
These Xeon CPUs sound interesting. Here's a comparison table from the Intel Xeon Processor 3400 Series - Specification Update for anyone looking to get one.
http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/6597/xeon.jpg
When C3/C6 is enabled in the bios, an X3440 can step up to a 22X multiplier when a single core is active. (2.93GHz / 133MHz = 22).
By comparison, an i7-860 has a maximum multiplier of 26 when only a single core is active.
When not using C3/C6, the i7-860 might be an easier overclock with its default 21X multiplier compared to 19X for the X3440.
agreed Uncle, but i think is correct compare a X3460 with the 860 processor ....
Where I live, the X3440 is priced between an i5-750 and an i7-860 but it's closer in price to the i5-750. An X3460 is a little more expensive than an i7-860.
It's a nice way to get Hyper Threading if you need it without having to go all the way up to an i7-860. Before today, I didn't realize NCIX have some of these in stock.
yes is really difficult find out these chips ... i bought it in Germany ...
1.184 vcore and 1.19 vtt for 3.6...Quote:
Originally Posted by KURTZ
I think your chip has better overclocking abilities then mine. I don't think I could complete a 1hr. prime run with voltages that low. I may explore lowering my voltages some more at 3.6 but I think it will error out.
How about trying 19x200 with your setup? I'm also curious to know the batch# for your proc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PolRoger
L929B696
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/7773/3800noht.png without HT :)
Looks like its a nice batch!:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by KURTZ
today is arrived my X3460 (batch L920B580) what's yours?Quote:
Originally Posted by PolRoger
My X3440 is batch# L920B451Quote:
Originally Posted by KURTZ
damn, i think that the my chip is weird like yours ... :SQuote:
Originally Posted by PolRoger
Having trouble with the turbo multi? If so you may have to wait untill ASUS releases a BIOS that officially supports these Xeon procs.Quote:
Originally Posted by KURTZ
what troubles do you have? (i've the same M/B than you)Quote:
Originally Posted by PolRoger
http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/5...agineby.th.jpg
I saw that your previous screen shot with the i7 860 showed an ASUS Max III Formula? I can't get my turbo to work stock or overclock... mine are all locked at 19. Your seems to be working. What did you mean by your chip being weird?Quote:
Originally Posted by KURTZ
bad overclocking dude ... i mean this ... bad voltage and bad temps ... i bought this chip cause i think that are better than the normal i7s ... but it seems that isn't ...
Well our batch# are not that far apart... however your particular i7 860 does seem pretty nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by KURTZ
So what were your BIOS settings for the 32M superpi... I would like to try/test them with my combo?
nothing special, i've just assembled with stock heatsink ... it's all default ... i'm waiting for a new block in the next days so after that i can do something ... check my Ts with the stock cooler ... just ridiculous ... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by PolRoger
Here is mine with the BIOS set to "optimized default" settings...still showing no turbo...:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by KURTZ
http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/v...ockedmulti.png
@ Roger: do you have enabled the turbo feature in the bios? it's strange ... really strange ... we have the same family chip, same os ... have you asked to eVGA?
Yes turbo is enabled... I don't know if it is the chip or my board. I have an i5 750 that should arrive soon and I'll be able to test it as well. If it still doesn't work then I'll be contacting EVGA.Quote:
Originally Posted by KURTZ
So the x3450 looks like the sweet spot chip. I'm pretty interested to hear how this all works out. So far, it seems to me that the OC potential is a little less in the xeon family 1156 chip.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...urboTester.zip
http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/4510/turboboost.png
PolRoger: It's possible your ES processor doesn't support turbo mode. I wrote a quick little program that just checks the bit in the CPU to see if turbo mode is available. I'm not sure if this will give you any new information. Maybe you could try it too KURTZ and see what it reports when turbo is enabled and when it's disabled in the bios.
KURTZ: What does that show if you disable turbo mode in the bios?
My i5 750 went in today so I'll have to wait untill the X3440 is remounted to see what your program reports on the ES chip, however I seem to be having the same problem now with my i5. If I disable "turbo" in BIOS your program says the i5 is "not supported" if it is enabled in BIOS " Turbo Boost" shows that is supported. That being said I still can't seem to get the turbo multi to function with the i5 either so I'm thinking the problem lies with this particular motherboard.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Here is a i5 shot with stock optimized defaults enabled:
http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/v...settingstu.png
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/1418/123turbo.th.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
There was a weird problem a while ago with the DFI X58 boards that was limiting the multiplier when using Windows 7 RC.
I wrote a program for them at the time that was kind of a quick work around that helped them out until the bios guys were able to get the real problem fixed.
I just updated it for these new CPUs so give it a try.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...MultiBoost.zip
Load your CPU with Super PI or what have you and hit the Boost Now button and see what happens.
I don't know if it will help your problem any but I know it can't hurt to try it. Your CPU seems to be saying that it supports turbo boost so it might be a hidden setting in Windows that is holding you back.
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=767385
22x onto the 860? M/B MIIIF cpu level up in the BIOS can allow to set the 22x multiplier ... :S possible? with my Xeon (eVGA FTW) the max is 21x ...
Uncle Webb,Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I tried it out but it didn't seem to make a difference. I'm still locked at x20 on the i5 750. I also installed Vista Home 64bit onto another hdd and it shows the same as well. If turbo is set to "enabled" (20x200) in BIOS it will report a speed of 4200Mhz in BIOS but Windows still shows 19x200 and 4000Mhz. If I "disable" turbo it will show a speed of 4000Mhz in BIOS and of course so does CPUZ/Eleet in windows. I'll probably now go and post about this issue at the EVGA forums...
http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.asp?m=...ey=�Quote:
Originally Posted by PolRoger
also send a mail to the official support ... :)
KURTZ: For the i7-920, the Asus boards would let you select a 21X multiplier in the bios even though the maximum default multiplier for an i7-920 is only 20X. It was just a trick by Asus. As soon as you selected 21, it would automatically enable turbo mode at the same time.
Some mainboards might do the same thing with i7-860 / X3460 CPUs. If there is an option in the bios to use a 22X multiplier then selecting this will automatically turn on turbo mode at the same time.
PolRoger: There's a model specific register (MSR) within the processor that sometimes gets set to the wrong value by Windows or the bios. This register can control the multiplier you end up with.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/MSR.zip
My MSR Tool lets you read this register so you can compare to other users to see if this might be where the problem is. Run the above program and type in 0x199 in the MSR Number box and then click on the Read MSR button and send me a screen shot. Maybe you can do the same KURTZ.
Make sure EIST is enabled in the bios and go into your Control Panel -> Power Options and make sure the Minimum and Maximum processor state are both set to 100%. I got lucky with the DFI and was able to find a work around but I might not be so lucky with this problem.
http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/2...ionsminmax.png
Ok, but why my friends can go @ 26x (w/Turbo on single core) with their i7-860? i can get only 25x (like you can saw in the shots that i've posted in the RT's thread)Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/8710/boost.th.jpg
anyway, i've checked into my BIOS and like you said if i enable the Turbo Mode i've got the 22x133 only in the BIOS (never saw in the OS), obviously if i disable the Turbo i've 21x133 in the BIOS and in the OS ...
edit: this is with 'BALANCED' Performance in the OS
http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/4686/msr.th.jpg
and this is with 'HIGH PERFORMANCE'
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/5039/msr100.th.jpg
edit: i'm under W7 64bit
You'll have to post some links to your friend's CPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by KURTZ
A Core i7-860 can only have a 26X maximum multiplier full time if you disable 3 cores in the bios.
If you have all 4 cores enabled in the bios, the multiplier will constantly cycle between 25 and 26. You can use a program like i7 Turbo and calculate the average multiplier which has some meaning.
When 4 cores are enabled in the bios, CPU-Z and ELEET might report your maximum multiplier at 26 but it is not steady at 26. It's constantly dropping down to 25 or lower depending on how many cores are active at any point in time. Ask your friend to send a screen shot of CPU-Z and i7 Turbo at the same time when CPU-Z is reporting a 26 multiplier and I will show you what's really going on.
i7 Turbo reported a multiplier of 25.248 in the screen shot you posted in the RealTemp forum. The only way the average multiplier can be greater than 25 is if it is spending some of its time at 26. With C3/C6 enabled, your multi is definitely spending some time using the 26X multiplier but with 4 cores enabled in the bios, it is not possible for it to spend 100% of the time using the 26 multi. Don't be confused by CPU-Z or ELEET reporting the maximum multiplier. That only tells part of what's really going on inside your CPU.
Edit: The 0x00000016 in MSR 0x199 is in hexadecimal so the equivalent in decimal is 22. The default multi is 21 and setting this to one more than 21 is asking the CPU to use turbo mode. The CPU gives back the maximum turbo boost it is allowed to use based on how many active cores you presently have and whether C3/C6 is enabled. You can also read MSR 0x198 which tells you what multiplier the CPU is using but I'm not sure what multiplier it will show on these new CPUs when multiple bins of turbo boost are available. That's why programs that depend on reading MSR 0x198 are not always accurate, especially at idle or when lightly loaded.
i've asked to my friends, so when i've some feed-backs i'll post their shots here ... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
anyway, just tried to disable 3 cores and HT:
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/5843/26x.th.jpg
like you can see now for the first time i saw the 26x multiplier, BUT isn't always @ 26x ... most of the time it stays stuck @ 25x ...
Disable C1E and make sure in the Control Panel -> Power Options your Minimum processor state is set to 100%. Run Super PI and it should be a constant 26X when 3 cores are disabled in the bios and turbo mode is enabled. The 17.497 number that i7 Turbo reports shows that your multiplier is not at a steady 26 at idle. You need to make those other adjustments until it is steady.
Dear Uncle you're simply THE MAN!!! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/1631/finallyf.th.jpg
so no troubles here? :P
just another little Q for you: i've this option in my BIOS:
C State package limit settings
- Auto
- C1
- C3
- C6
- C7
what means and what's the better? thank you so much ... :)
See, I just don't make this sh_it up. I knew there was a 26 multi hiding in your CPU. :up:
It's all those other programs that like to ignore what's really going on inside your CPU that ends up confusing people. It's hard to rely on CPU-Z / ELEET when it can report the exact same multiplier even though internally, the CPU might be doing two different things.
I use the Set minimum processor state option to control the multi at idle. I don't usually enable C1 because it can cause the floating multiplier problem if other things aren't set correctly.
C3/C6 are needed if you want more than a +1 multiplier when running single threaded tasks. If all you want is your multiplier locked at +1 then enable turbo and disable C3/C6. You don't need it and it can be a problem when overclocking if it is cycling your multi up to 26 times.
C7 is a deeper sleep state so if you like to save power and are using C3/C6 then enable C7 too and see if you like it. Lots of users like a nice steady multiplier so I always recommend using i7 Turbo so the multiplier you think you are getting is actually what you're really getting. Setting something in the bios isn't always what you end up with in Windows.
Edit: You should be able to turn on hyper threading so you will have a speedy single core Xeon CPU that can process two tasks at a time. Go do some Super PI benches to show us what you get.
Thanks to Shamino over at the EVGA forums... I have now resolved my lack of turbo with this chip. It turned out that I was missing some jumpers on the P55 FTW motherboard which was keeping the multi locked at x19. With the jumpers in place the turbo is now functioning correctly. :up:
Next: onwards to push for 4.0Ghz.
http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/v...0withturbo.png
superb! let's do dude! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by PolRoger
195 x22 for 1 thread (4.29), x21 for 2 threads (4095) and x20 for 8 threads (3.9) with ~1.39 vcore on idle and 1 or 2 threads ~1.34 vcore with load and 8 threads.
http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/v...Ghz1900Mhz.png
http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/v...39GhzLoad1.png
So in a nutshell, is the X3440 and the i7 860 similar/identical?
Nope. The X3440 only has a default multiplier of 19 and the i7-860 has a default multi of 21.
http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SLBLF
http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SLBJJ
Here's a good comparison:
http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=41316,42928,
Well, I know that. But will it be the overclock the same? How about the performance and thermal?Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
check my thread about the X3460 ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by lkiller123
Probably not to hard to run 19x200... if you got a good chip with decent cooling I would think you could do 20x200 turbo enabled (24/7). I don't see many people running these "i" series at 210 bclk except for some limited benching. I tested mine up to 3.9 and I'm still working on getting 4.0 fully stable. The last couple of weeks I've been testing i5 750.Quote:
Originally Posted by lkiller123
So the x3440 @ $250 CAD > core i5 750 @ $220 CAD if you get the Turbo and HT to work, right?
any one confirmed whether Xeon X3440 will work on a Gigabyte P55M ud4?????
i've seen some guys at those "hackintosh" forums using a x3440 with a ud2 and even a h55m s2h...
i have the latest OFFICIAL gigabyte bios "F11"...so....
I could save almost 100.00 canadian by getting this xeon instead of the still overpriced 870 and taking it to the same 4.0ghz...(in theory anyway - maybe 3.8)
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/5919/3440atv4.jpg
gigabyte lists no support or option for it on their joke of a support site....if you can even call it a site...LOL :rofl::rofl:
edit: nevermind found over 10 others on other forums using it with everything from a h55m to a ud5 and of course the ud4 and it's brother the ud4p
i think i'll be alright
and most NOTABLY this...
http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/1...oofofx3440.png
thanks:up::up::up::up::up::up:
by the way it seems a bit confusing...how many threads do you get at 20x200???
cause i would rather make it pull its WEIGHT for once and do 19x211 for a true 4.0ghz unless the 20x gives youl the FULL 8 threads-i mean otherwise the 4.0 ain't real.....
and yes i can convince this board to do 211 fsb...
http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/9...vgap55ftw1.png
know what i mean????
i mean if i'm going for 4.0 i don't want it to be just "in my head"....