Intel ships 4.4 Ghz Westmere dual-cores.

Quote:

---

In the middle of last year, when Intel produced pre-production parts for the next refresh of Xeon 5600-series, they also made several quite interesting Xeon samples. The most distinguishing feature of these chips was very high clock frequency. Even the slowest Xeon microprocessor from that group was clocked at 4 GHz, and the fastest one reached 4.66 GHz. One of these samples made into production, and started shipping earlier this year. The processor was released as Xeon X5698, and, at 4.4 GHz, it's the fastest Intel production CPU ever.
Intel Xeon X5698 is built on Westemere microarchitecture, and, with a couple of notable differences, shares many features with other Xeon 5600 chips. One of the differences, extremely high core frequency, we already mentioned above. This model has only two active CPU cores, and we believe that 4 other cores on the die are disabled. The processor comes with 12 MB L3 cache, HyperThreading, and works in socket 1366 motherboards. Intel X5698 has OEM part number AT80614007314AA, and S-spec number SLC32. We suspect that this SKU will be shipped only in OEM systems.

---

Source
Most likely OEM-only but Intel has now broken the 4 Ghz barrier :clap:

Uhhhh... These can be great clockers! :D

Odd they break it on server chips, they normally run slower than consumer chips.

For me its oppesit of what it has been for many years, its low core count and high clock.

About time too, too bad these are server chips. I wonder how much are these though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mech0z

Odd they break it on server chips, they normally run slower than consumer chips.

For me its oppesit of what it has been for many years, its low core count and high clock.

---

It's most likely made to run software where you pay your license by the core.

That's incredibly fast, now we need 10c/20t/8p 4.66GHz Westmeres :D (I think that would be around 700GFlops of power in one machine :eek: :shocked:)

Don't i3s OC to this and are really stable on air as well? Just wondering...

Seemed like this wasn't an impossible feet at all. They just pushed the chips a tad.

Looking forward to 5ghz quads that OC to 6+! :up:

what happened to the 4.66 one? :D
wantttt!!! i havent been this excited about new cpus for a loooong time! :D
if it supports HT and the price is nice i might get one!
itll probably cost a lot though :/

Very nice clock speed! For those who need fastest chips for their serial workloads,these are the ones to have.

Best chips for gaming! I've been looking at what's slowing down games after some upgrades, and it's always always single core processes :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Halk

Best chips for gaming! I've been looking at what's slowing down games after some upgrades, and it's always always single core processes :/

---

Arent increasingly more games making use of quad cores now though?

4.4 - 4.66 Ghz is impressive for stock clocks, but surely they can make a quad with those speeds by now :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boissez

It's most likely made to run software where you pay your license by the core.

---

Right, forgot about that type of pricing scheme

Hihi imagine ... full TDP of the i7's just to use on 2 cores :D great :D

I will imagine 5.5Ghz o'clocks to be not that hard to reach :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhavv

Arent increasingly more games making use of quad cores now though?

4.4 - 4.66 Ghz is impressive for stock clocks, but surely they can make a quad with those speeds by now :p

---

They do at times, but when it comes to delays while loading it seems it's often a single threaded process.

7 years after netburst they finally broke the 4ghz barrier on x86 CPUs ;)

holy moly, i want one - ok, more than one - of these beast :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Sweeper_

7 years after netburst they finally broke the 4ghz barrier on x86 CPUs ;)

---

Only a wee bit of way to go to the 10 GHz barrier then :p:

Ehh you can break 4.8ghz on 2600k with ease and most do well over 5ghz with 4 cores and hyperthreading for 325. Bucks

Only two cores of the six are active?? :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhavv

Arent increasingly more games making use of quad cores now though?

4.4 - 4.66 Ghz is impressive for stock clocks, but surely they can make a quad with those speeds by now :p

---

its more like games CAN use 2-4 cores now... doesnt mean it makes it a lot faster... i havent seen any game scale above 2 cores in a way that would make it justified to go for a quad if all you do is game... 5% extra performance, maybe 10%... hows that worth upgrading or paying more? either its playable already or it isnt and then extra cores dont help...

besides, more cores help average and max fps, i havent seen them improve min fps...
from single to dual you get a slight boost in min fps, but thats it...
if you care about min fps then 2 fast cores = lord :D

If you disable 2 cores on a 2600k, you can run VERY low voltage at 4.4 ghz. Try it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

its more like games CAN use 2-4 cores now... doesnt mean it makes it a lot faster... i havent seen any game scale above 2 cores in a way that would make it justified to go for a quad if all you do is game... 5% extra performance, maybe 10%... hows that worth upgrading or paying more? either its playable already or it isnt and then extra cores dont help...

besides, more cores help average and max fps, i havent seen them improve min fps...
from single to dual you get a slight boost in min fps, but thats it...
if you care about min fps then 2 fast cores = lord :D

---

:rofl: I've seen you claim a lot of stuff like that about gaming. Quads don't help, overclocking is unnecessary, etc. According to your posts you don't need anything more than an E5300 for an optimal gaming experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

its more like games CAN use 2-4 cores now... doesnt mean it makes it a lot faster... i havent seen any game scale above 2 cores in a way that would make it justified to go for a quad if all you do is game... 5% extra performance, maybe 10%... hows that worth upgrading or paying more? either its playable already or it isnt and then extra cores dont help...

besides, more cores help average and max fps, i havent seen them improve min fps...
from single to dual you get a slight boost in min fps, but thats it...
if you care about min fps then 2 fast cores = lord :D

---

Valve's multi-core support on TF2/L4D/L4D2 made quite the difference for me. Before I'd have to run at 1080p with 0 aa when only using 1 core. Using all 4 I can throw the AA to 8x-16x and still get just as much performance than I did with one core. Should it's "only" aa, but it improves the experience, and ontop of that i still get higher min/avg/max frames.

Wish Blizzard would get on that kind of train, sc2 using only 2 cores kills me in customs/3v3/4v4 battles. Sure these games aren't Crysis or anything, but they are fun to me, and have proven to me that core count and multi threading gaming makes a difference in performance across the board from eye candy to frame rates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

its more like games CAN use 2-4 cores now... doesnt mean it makes it a lot faster... i havent seen any game scale above 2 cores in a way that would make it justified to go for a quad if all you do is game... 5% extra performance, maybe 10%... hows that worth upgrading or paying more?

---

Even in GTA4? :rolleyes: Starcraft2?

Sayaa isn't a big gamer. It's not the first time that he has made a comment about how a fast cpu, or more cores don't make a difference with gaming. I'm not going to list the games that do benefit from a quad but its no small list anymore and it is growing. You don't have to look too far to find some benchmarks to see that either. Pcgameshardware even mentions like ten games the benefit from a hexcore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

You don't have to look too far to find some benchmarks to see that either. Pcgameshardware even mentions like ten games the benefit from a hexcore.

---

On the other hand, the quad-core 2600K is the fastest CPU in almost all of those games mentioned by PCGamesHardware.

wasn't there a 4ghz P4?

Anyways this is impressive intel, keep em coming. but not a quad or hexa core?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sin0822

wasn't there a 4ghz P4?

Anyways this is impressive intel, keep em coming. but not a quad or hexa core?

---

I think the fastest P4 at stock wa 3.83 Ghz. AFIK

They made a 4ghz presshot, but decided against releasing it.

the fastest northwood was 3.4 and was only available in limited quantities
then there was an extreme edition gallatin core based chip that came at 3.46 with massive cache and higher fsb
after that prescott came out and only went up to 3.8, also only in limited quantities if i remember correctly...
there was also a prescott xe but it only came at 3.73 and was slower than gallatin at 3.46 if i remember correctly

its good that intel didnt release a 4ghz prescott...
other chips they shouldnt have released are their 1ghz+ p3 chips and their first dualcore chips (dual prescott, OUCH)

actually i think the problems was not good enough cooling at least for prescott and smithfield...
if theyd have bundled proper stock heatsinks for those chips, i dont think anybody would have cared... i mean vgas are breaking the 300W barrier now and people dont care as long perf and price is alright...

i remember craig barrett, or was it otellini?, getting down on his knees in front of an audience and apologizing for not releasing a 4ghz chip.
that was.. one of the most bizarre moments in tech history i think... never understood what the big deal was... nobody cared about 4ghz, it was about intel not being competitive...
even IF theyd have had a 4ghz chip at good temps and low price that wouldnt have solved their issues...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Halk

They do at times, but when it comes to delays while loading it seems it's often a single threaded process.

---

But on intel quads when only a single thread is being used, it gets a turbo boost right?

I remember seeing some benchmarks were dual to quad made a huge impact in some games, I'll have a browse now and see what I can find.

- I really cant find anything recent with the latest architectures, all I mostly see is benchies comparing socket 775 CPUs which isnt really relevant.

Someone needs to do an up to date dual vs quad core review, and include the latest games.

Saaya, some games definitely DO benefit from more than two cores. I found Flight Sim X and Bad Company 2 almost unplayable on a dual core without overclocking the crap out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhavv

But on intel quads when only a single thread is being used, it gets a turbo boost right?

I remember seeing some benchmarks were dual to quad made a huge impact in some games, I'll have a browse now and see what I can find.

- I really cant find anything recent with the latest architectures, all I mostly see is benchies comparing socket 775 CPUs which isnt really relevant.

Someone needs to do an up to date dual vs quad core review, and include the latest games.

---

Turbo is based on number of threads loaded, not just single thread.

Yes, quad can have large impact vs dual.

Give me a quad at 5ghz with 12mb. Duals are for phones :p

just wondering why you think they should of not put out the 1ghz p3 copperton or what ever it was called.I had one and it blew away the first gen p4s

Oh yes, absolutely. Until P4s got into 2 GHz territory, I was partial to older Pentium 3 systems. They were quite a bit faster. That's why I upgraded from a Coppermine-derived Celeron 533 (which ran happily at 920 MHz heh) in those days to a 1.2 GHz Thunderbird instead of a P4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Particle

Oh yes, absolutely. Until P4s got into 2 GHz territory, I was partial to older Pentium 3 systems. They were quite a bit faster. That's why I upgraded from a Coppermine-derived Celeron 533 (which ran happily at 920 MHz heh) in those days to a 1.2 GHz Thunderbird instead of a P4.

---

Off topic but yeah I was rocking a dual socket PIII for the longest time over the P4. Those were good times!

On topic: looks like 4GHz and soon 5GHz is old and dusty now a days. So 6GHz it is then!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Particle

Oh yes, absolutely. Until P4s got into 2 GHz territory, I was partial to older Pentium 3 systems. They were quite a bit faster. That's why I upgraded from a Coppermine-derived Celeron 533 (which ran happily at 920 MHz heh) in those days to a 1.2 GHz Thunderbird instead of a P4.

---

Don't forget the Tualatin based Pentium 3s after that, and the Celerons too. I think a 1.3GHz Celeron came pretty close to a 1.3GHz s423 P4:p:

Bad Company 2 does more than "make use" of more than 2 cores. It will outright punish you for not having a quad. You can't clock a dual core high enough to really compensate (unless you are going well into 4Ghz territory, maybe).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom128

Bad Company 2 does more than "make use" of more than 2 cores. It will outright punish you for not having a quad. You can't clock a dual core high enough to really compensate (unless you are going well into 4Ghz territory, maybe).

---

Hahahaha this^^ I also saw a (much smaller, but still there) increase going from a 965BE to a 1055T, both clocked at 3.9GHz.

With the myriad of quad-cores flooding consumer's (gamer's) homes, I can only assume that most new releases will be fully optimized for more than 2 cores.
I was a big proponent of my 4.4GHz E8600 and held off on the quads for a long-time. Then I woke up and smelled the coffee. :) Life with a quad + HT IS better. - Especially at 4.6GHz. We just need easy 5.5GHz OCable quads.

Not to derail, but how much btter will the Ivy Bridge quads be? Maybe squeeze another 200MHz using same voltages?

Why do we even need to argure about that when we have pretty reliable statistics...

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/

Fact is, that the majority of cpu out there are still dualcores, and if the trend continues we need another 4-5 months till the crossover to quadcores is done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

:rofl: I've seen you claim a lot of stuff like that about gaming. Quads don't help, overclocking is unnecessary, etc. According to your posts you don't need anything more than an E5300 for an optimal gaming experience.

---

where did i say quads dont help and overclocking is unneccessary? :confused:

i guess you refer to my comments that depending on what resolutions you play at with what vga a 2.4ghz chip is all you need?

i said i havent seen any games that notably scale with more than 2 cores...
why do you have to twist my words around and then make it personal? whats your problem? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthShader

Even in GTA4? :rolleyes: Starcraft2?

---

oh well, gta4 was a horrible console port...
i think it got a 40% fps boost going from 2 to 4 cores at the same clocks or something... but there was more to it, it stuttered and had weird issues with dualcore chips which didnt show up in benchmarks...

so yeah, true... for gta4 more than 2 cores definitely make sense...

starcraft2... dont know what you mean...
sc2 is very cpu bound but doesnt make good use of cores...
860 vs 750, almost no difference
c2d vs c2q, cores dont matter, its all about clocks

http://www.abload.de/img/sc2cores5na0.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

Sayaa isn't a big gamer. It's not the first time that he has made a comment about how a fast cpu, or more cores don't make a difference with gaming

---

sigh... yeah, faster cpus, memory, ssds, vgas ALWAYS scale... there are no bottlenecks... your right...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

I'm not going to list the games that do benefit from a quad but its no small list anymore and it is growing. You don't have to look too far to find some benchmarks to see that either. Pcgameshardware even mentions like ten games the benefit from a hexcore.

---

i never said no games benefit from quads of hex cores...
maybe thats why your so pssed off... go read my posts and relax...

IIII havent seen any (added: interesting) games that IIIII think benefit from more than 2 cores enough to justify a quad or even hex over a dualcore...
you say im wrong, quoting me incorrectly, attack me personally, and then dont provide any info to back up your statements... bravo!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhavv

But on intel quads when only a single thread is being used, it gets a turbo boost right?

I remember seeing some benchmarks were dual to quad made a huge impact in some games, I'll have a browse now and see what I can find.

---

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,7...CPUs/Practice/
lots of "up to" and "in some situations"...
im curious how they tested and what the actual numbers are like...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] Oj101

Saaya, some games definitely DO benefit from more than two cores. I found Flight Sim X and Bad Company 2 almost unplayable on a dual core without overclocking the crap out of it.

---

fsx makes sense, yeah...
bc2... didnt know that... guess its cause its a console port as well :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skratch

just wondering why you think they should of not put out the 1ghz p3 copperton or what ever it was called.I had one and it blew away the first gen p4s

---

you were lucky then... the first couple of batches were not stable at 1ghz and above... there was a 1.13ghz p3 that intel canceled cause they just couldnt get them stable, and then they relaunched them later i think...

i had a P3 700E with 100fsb... just had to up the fsb to 133 which board and mem supported, and voila, 933 :D
didnt need more volts... i loved my P3... but when athlon thunderbird came out with DDR and 1ghz stock speed overclocking to 1.7+ on air... damn... that was a different world... what a massive speed boost...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] Oj101

Don't forget the Tualatin based Pentium 3s after that, and the Celerons too. I think a 1.3GHz Celeron came pretty close to a 1.3GHz s423 P4:p:

---

yeah i built a few tualatin celeron 1.3ghz rigs running 1.8 on air...
loved those... they were fsb limited, otherwise i think they would have gone insanely high on ln2 and phase change...

They must be 2-core Gulftown,that means they have gulftown IMC not clarkdale,so this kind of CPU would be just great for 2d benches if it reaches very high clock speeds on LN2 :)

GTA4 is not a "horrible console port", the engine does a crap load of work. Do you ever see a pause as it says LOADING while driving from one area to the next? Basically the entire game is stored in RAM, be it system RAM or graphics memory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex-Ro

They must be 2-core Gulftown,that means they have gulftown IMC not clarkdale,so this kind of CPU would be just great for 2d benches if it reaches very high clock speeds on LN2 :)

---

thats what i was thinking too,these might make for some great memory OC's:up:

hopefully the price is reasonable

this chip + OC board = sweet :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

other chips they shouldnt have released are their 1ghz+ p3 chips and their first dualcore chips (dual prescott, OUCH)

---

I totally disagree, I'm still running Pentium D 805 (in fact right now), at the time it cost half of the cheapest AMD dual (~100 euro IIRC) and overclocked like crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m^2

I totally disagree, I'm still running Pentium D 805 (in fact right now), at the time it cost half of the cheapest AMD dual (~100 euro IIRC) and overclocked like crazy.

---

We still have a Pentium D at work here. It really isn't much more responsive than the P4 Northwood box we still use. Even at the cheap price Intel was offloading these chips i really don't think they were worth it unless you really couldn't afford a K8 dualcore. Even overclocked they really were a far cry from using an AMD dual core at the time. Offcourse the reverse is more or less true at the moment.

Utterly irrelevant....... I played Bad Company 2 on a Clarkdale with HT disabled at 3.04GHz with a 5770 and had no problems other than the game not being anything special. Resolution was 1440x900 though, if that matters

Well then gta4 is ahead of its time and one of the most demanding and advanced games out there... call it whatever you want, it stutters with dualcores even though fps are fine , it needs LOTS of RAM both for CPU and gpu, and graphics and features suck compared to any other game out there.

Gta3 and onwards are successful cause they are creative and have a lot of nice humor in them, and I like them, but don't tell me they are using a great engine and are coded well lol...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m^2

I totally disagree, I'm still running Pentium D 805 (in fact right now), at the time it cost half of the cheapest AMD dual (~100 euro IIRC) and overclocked like crazy.

---

those were nice with a good heatsink, I was talking about the 840xeons those chips violated intense own tdp guidelines and blew quite some boards and ran very hot.

these also might be good replacement for those who disable their cores for certain benches(SuperPi)?
this way they wont die like many gulfies tend to do when manually disabling cores:D

unless they die with one core disabled?

Its cool but has limited uses. Defiantly not for the common user.

So how much are they? :)
And where can I buy one? :D

Nice clock speed on those things :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

where did i say quads dont help and overclocking is unneccessary? :confused:

---

I'm sorry that may not and probably wasn't you. There was a thread here with a handful of benches of a few games where overclocking did not make a difference at all. The general conciseness of most of the posters was along the lines of "We already knew that overclocking is meaningless for a gaming rig". I'm not even going to attempt to search gaming and overclocking here to find it. There is a good chance that you had never posted in the thread and I apologize.

2x of these babys!! =yumm!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

I'm sorry that may not and probably wasn't you. There was a thread here with a handful of benches of a few games where overclocking did not make a difference at all. The general conciseness of most of the posters was along the lines of "We already knew that overclocking is meaningless for a gaming rig". I'm not even going to attempt to search gaming and overclocking here to find it. There is a good chance that you had never posted in the thread and I apologize.

---

No problem :toast:
Depending on what game and what res you play at faster cpus really do not help though... pcgh had an article about this a while ago, showing that in a lot of games with high res faster cpus barely boost fps.

Sc2 def loves CPU clocks though, oh yes... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny87au

2x of these babys!! =yumm!

---

Overclocked SandyB would be still faster? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthShader

Overclocked SandyB would be still faster? :confused:

---

True, but if your on 1366 this makes more sense then getting a new board and CPU :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny87au

2x of these babys!! =yumm!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

True, but if your on 1366 this makes more sense then getting a new board and CPU :D

---

and even more sense if you own a SR2:D

I want a 4.4ghz Sandy Bridge Dualcore. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clayton

I want a 4.4ghz Sandy Bridge Dualcore. :(

---

with todays turbo features that should be included with any SB quad, they are almost there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

True, but if your on 1366 this makes more sense then getting a new board and CPU :D

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by radaja

and even more sense if you own a SR2:D

---

Fair points, if you are not concerned about core count. :)

What the hell do you want dual cores in SR2 for? defies logic....

These wont work in an SR-2 anyways, they dont have dual QPI buses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthShader

Overclocked SandyB would be still faster? :confused:

---

Likely. But full of DRM crap.:down:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eXa

What the hell do you want dual cores in SR2 for? defies logic....

---

i only said sr2 because he wanted 2 of them.but yea it would pointless for the SR2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

These wont work in an SR-2 anyways, they dont have dual QPI buses.

---

according to this they do?
Intel’s Xeon X5698, the Fastest Processor to Date is soon to Ships

and this one too
Intel Ships Its Fastest Processor to Date, the 4.4GHz Xeon X5698


http://i52.tinypic.com/35ddj4g.jpg

guess I should have looked closer, my bad.

These might be useless for SR2 yes, but on my Tyan S7025 (similar board to SR2 but no OC option) two of these would make be the ultimate option for gaming.
I'm assuming there's no practical advantage having more than four cores in gaming use.

There's no mention of Turbo clocks and the the 1066 MHz DDR3 speed is a bit of a letdown though.

Any mention of pricing?

no... you're missing the point a little... SB would be much better than 2 of theese cpus.

So if you want them for gaming, sell your SR2, Tyan S7025 or whatever and get SB instead! Buying 2 of theese cpus for gaming is just silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eXa

no... you're missing the point a little... SB would be much better than 2 of theese cpus.

So if you want them for gaming, sell your SR2, Tyan S7025 or whatever and get SB instead! Buying 2 of theese cpus for gaming is just silly.

---

Do you claim that any single SB would match it in workloads that don't scale to more than 4 threads?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m^2

Do you claim that any single SB would match it in workloads that don't scale to more than 4 threads?

---

most 2500k and 2600ks are doing over 4.7ghz all day.Im at 5ghz air cooled with closed case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skratch

most 2500k and 2600ks are doing over 4.7ghz all day.Im at 5ghz air cooled with closed case.

---

Not to mention SB has a performance advantage over Westmere at the same clocks. So it wouldn't even take 4,4ghz on Sandybridge to match 2 of these. 4,4ghz should still be piss easy with Sandybridge though :p:

^^ What they said!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skratch

most 2500k and 2600ks are doing over 4.7ghz all day.Im at 5ghz air cooled with closed case.

---

No, almost all do 3.3 and 3.4 ghz respectively.
So your comment is pure BS for people who don't use OCed PCs. And for the rest...did you try to OC a pair of X5698s, so we can judge if your post has any merit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m^2

No, almost all do 3.3 and 3.4 ghz respectively.
So your comment is pure BS for people who don't use OCed PCs. And for the rest...did you try to OC a pair of X5698s, so we can judge if your post has any merit?

---

what are you talking about?

a 2500k turbos to 3.7ghz and a 2600k turbos to 3.8ghz stock.

so are you saying that most sandy bs cant go past 3.3ghz? :ROTF:

Im benching at 5.3ghz my friend,take a look around as most 2600k are all benching over 5.3ghz and some have hit the 56x multy as there limiter.

a sandybridge boosts to 3.8 on its own,there is no overclocking done at all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skratch

what are you talking about?

a 2500k turbos to 3.7ghz and a 2600k turbos to 3.8ghz stock.

so are you saying that most sandy bs cant go past 3.3ghz? :ROTF:

Im benching at 5.3ghz my friend,take a look around as most 2600k are all benching over 5.3ghz and some have hit the 56x multy as there limiter.

a sandybridge boosts to 3.8 on its own,there is no overclocking done at all

---

I didn't bother to search for turbo speed because it doesn't matter for the sake of comparison - you'd be pressed to find any workload where stock SB would win with a pair of stock X5698s and that was the point.

Your scenario just isnt realistic. Average joe who doesnt overclock doesnt buy 2 X5698 to run in a server board/sr2 for gaming.
No one who has a brain just wouldnt buy 2 x5698 for gaming when 2500K/2600K is just better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthShader

Overclocked SandyB would be still faster? :confused:

---

No chance, ATM yes but when we can finally utilize more cores not a chance!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eXa

Your scenario just isnt realistic. Average joe who doesnt overclock doesnt buy 2 X5698 to run in a server board/sr2 for gaming.
No one who has a brain just wouldnt buy 2 x5698 for gaming when 2500K/2600K is just better.

---

Who was talking about the average Joe. This thread is about the X5698 chips after all :rolleyes:

I was just arguing that a pair of these would make currently the ultimate gaming system. Which is most likely true. I just read the Anandtech SB review where the i7 975 was trading blows in game tests with a similarily clocked 2500K.

Now imagine how a similar chip would perform clocked at >30% higher and with six memory channels (albeit slow ECC) vs two on the SB. At stock speed there would be no contest. Overclocking is pure speculation at this point, but clearly these chips would clock at least a little higher than the SB ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny87au

No chance, ATM yes but when we can finally utilize more cores not a chance!

---

But there's no "more" cores in the chips this topic is about. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahu

Now imagine how a similar chip would perform clocked at >30% higher and with six memory channels (albeit slow ECC) vs two on the SB. At stock speed there would be no contest. Overclocking is pure speculation at this point, but clearly these chips would clock at least a little higher than the SB ones.

---

There's no six memory channels there, they are not working together on memory reads. And there is additional latency when communicating between the dies. While SB cores have a fast ring bus at their disposal.

Any SR-2 and SB owner willing to do gaming tests with two X5698 ? :rolleyes:

If you're going to compair them at least use the 2600k that has more cache and hyperthreading over the 2500k.its funny how somethink sb don't clock well and have no clue about them.like the guy that said they do 3.3 and 3.4 I guess he hasn't read one of the 40+ review sites that got over 4.5ghz on stock intel cooler.

A 2600k will game at 5.3ghz without much,basically a decent heatsink and a few tweaks in the bios.

How is that not a perfect gaming chip?you get over 5ghz with 4 cores and hyperthreading.don't use the 2500k to compair it has less cache and no hyperthreading.

A 325 dollar 2600k is the best bang for the buck right now for a gaming rig.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthShader

But there's no "more" cores in the chips this topic is about. :confused:


There's no six memory channels there, they are not working together on memory reads. And there is additional latency when communicating between the dies. While SB cores have a fast ring bus at their disposal.

Any SR-2 and SB owner willing to do gaming tests with two X5698 ? :rolleyes:

---

No, with three memory channels per processor and two processors with two QPI links and NUMA you really have six memory channels. The SB cores might have effective memory handling, but they can't reach the > 30 GB/s memory bandwidth of the Xeons.

Anyway, the GPU's are far more important for gaming performance than the CPU's. Are there any decent SB boards out there where you can pop in 3-4 x16 PCIe cards? Just asking...

There's a few people getting 28+gb/sec I have mine running 25gb for 24/7 use and can get it to 27 if I remove 2 of my sticks (running 2gbx4 for 8gb)and I can't run my timings as tight with 4 sticks.

Its not 30gigs but very close

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Falkentyne

If you disable 2 cores on a 2600k, you can run VERY low voltage at 4.4 ghz. Try it.

---

I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of that voltage saving is due to interconnect losses at increased levels of current draw. The absolute voltage required for the operational frequency is going to be almost the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahu

No, with three memory channels per processor and two processors with two QPI links and NUMA you really have six memory channels.

---

Duh, there's NUMA in there, right.

Quote:

---

Anyway, the GPU's are far more important for gaming performance than the CPU's. Are there any decent SB boards out there where you can pop in 3-4 x16 PCIe cards? Just asking...

---

Why limit yourself to 3-4, when you can have eight? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahu

Who was talking about the average Joe. This thread is about the X5698 chips after all :rolleyes:

I was just arguing that a pair of these would make currently the ultimate gaming system. Which is most likely true. I just read the Anandtech SB review where the i7 975 was trading blows in game tests with a similarily clocked 2500K.

Now imagine how a similar chip would perform clocked at >30% higher and with six memory channels (albeit slow ECC) vs two on the SB. At stock speed there would be no contest. Overclocking is pure speculation at this point, but clearly these chips would clock at least a little higher than the SB ones.

---

ECC ain't relly slow. And ain't necessary. Though IMHO worthwhile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthShader

There's no six memory channels there, they are not working together on memory reads. And there is additional latency when communicating between the dies. While SB cores have a fast ring bus at their disposal.

---

It all depends on workload. Yes, there is (much?) bigger latency when communicating between different CPUs. OTOH ring is slower than Nehalem's crossbar, so with 2 cores communication latency should be lower. And when you use both CPUs you use 6 channels of memory, which can be a huge performance improvement in some workloads. With random access to large amounts of memory you would be using 6 channels too, though with increased average latency and I have no idea whether it would work well. How is it with games? Dunno.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skratch

If you're going to compair them at least use the 2600k that has more cache and hyperthreading over the 2500k.its funny how somethink sb don't clock well and have no clue about them.like the guy that said they do 3.3 and 3.4 I guess he hasn't read one of the 40+ review sites that got over 4.5ghz on stock intel cooler.

---

Reading with understanding is hard, I know, so I'll repeat, hopefully this time it will work better:
1. Good majority of gamers don't OC their machines. For them a pair of Nehalems is going to be faster.
2. For those who do - we don't know what is faster. SB may be a great OCer, but what are you comparing it to? To stock numbers? We don't have any OC results yet, so any talk is a pure speculation. And I speculate that Nehalem is going to be faster than SB when it has twice as much power/core available.
ADDED:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthShader

Why limit yourself to 3-4, when you can have eight? :)

---

Single slot? Bleh.
http://www.tyan.com/product_SKU_spec...&SKU=600000206

Im saying that a person who isnt smart enought to enter the bios to change the multi to 45+ and maybe raise the voltage a couple of notches wont be a person who uses a SR2 with 2 x5698 either.
So again, your scenario aint very realistic. There is no point in comparing 2 x5698 to stock clock SB, especially on this forum. OC'ed x5698 compared to OC'ed SB, but X5698 is a westmere, there aint that much headroom left, SB would beat it without trouble.
A few GB/s bandwith aint going to make much difference.

A gamer wont use 3-4 graphics card either for that matter, its kinda pointless since it it just gives you more hassle without any gains. 3-4 graphics card is just useful for some benching...

Are you saying that a gamer is not going to over clock there sandy bridges?have you not seen the intel commercial that shows a grandmother overclocking her game rig??

The K chips come unlocked from intel for the whole purpose of overclocking.

Someone please post the intel commercial as im on my cell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GR5_X1CfUA

First you say sandy bs are doing 3.4 and totally missed where the boost to 3.8 on there own trying to say that most chips don't clock over 4.6 and now you say a gamer dosnt overclock.

All I said was who cares about a 4.4 server chip when you can game at 5ghz+ with a 225 dollar sandy b

Intel put out unlocked sandy bs just for gamers bro.I don't know what else to say.watch the commercial and see for yourself

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m^2

No, almost all do 3.3 and 3.4 ghz respectively.
So your comment is pure BS for people who don't use OCed PCs. And for the rest...did you try to OC a pair of X5698s, so we can judge if your post has any merit?

---

SB overclocks better than my i7 860 @ 4.0ghz all day long. So i have absolutely no idea where you're getting your numbers from.

I never watch commercials. I talk with people. Maybe that's why I don't have an impression that everybody overclocks. Yeah, talks here leave much different impressions but XS is hardly representative.
I don't have any hard data on how many OCs, it seems neither you do and I see we're stuck and don't move forward because of this. You love SB because it's fairly cheap or OCs. These babies ain't cheap, that's sure. Do they OC? Nobody knows. I dream about X5698s because when you don't OC, they should be way faster than anything else in single threaded workloads and still give OK number of total cores available for loads that scale somewhat (anybody else thinking about ScaleMP?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m^2

Likely. But full of DRM crap.:down:

---

I suggest you read this before you say something like that
http://www.overclock.net/11952623-post1.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m^2

I didn't bother to search for turbo speed because it doesn't matter for the sake of comparison - you'd be pressed to find any workload where stock SB would win with a pair of stock X5698s and that was the point.

---

SB is faster clock for clock anyway, so in all fairness, a pair of 5698's would probably need the clock advantage after the added latency to break even. I doubt Intel released this CPU for anything other than the fact that they could.

But I'll not say it's pointless, as they are only re-purposing chips they are already building and are selling at a steep premium, they could literally have five engineers converting the damn things by hand and still have a supply that meets the demand.

One last thing, your argument against the DRM system is rather weak, hardware DRM will only work if you feed it software DRM.

I dont understand why you wouldnt want to oc SB? Do you really understand how easy it is?
Show me a gamer who would choose SR-2/X5698 over an 4.5Ghz SB. And yes, i do talk to people and most people i know have mild oc on theire machines (yes, 4.5ghz SB IS a mild oc). Shure i have som friends/family that doesnt have an OC, but they certainly doesnt need no SB/SR-2 machine either.

So i still dont think an SR-2/x5698 machine is very realistisk because you got to be pretty mental(in my mind) to choose that over an 2600k based machine.

Intel nailed the mid/end range with their sandy bs.the kid prolly never read one review on them and missed the 40 plus reviews of everyone getting over 4.5ghz with stock intel cooler.

Enjoy your server board as a gaming rig.

Ps.almost all games overclock.do you think the people you talk to spend 1500 on three gtx 580s and not use the bundled overclocking software that comes with the cards?

For the price of your dream chips you could built a record breaking sandy setup!

I have ignored the price point since it huuugly favors SB, and that when we're talking about the "ultimate gaming system" price isnt an issue. But, more expensive aint always better...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m^2

I didn't bother to search for turbo speed because it doesn't matter for the sake of comparison - you'd be pressed to find any workload where stock SB would win with a pair of stock X5698s and that was the point.

---

And whats the point in comparing a system to another system, whree the board alone costs more then a 2600K + board...

Plus the two 5698s won't be cheap.

So if you invest the same money in both systems I bet you could get either a SR2+2x5698 or a nice X58 board with a 990X.

And a 990X will be faster in some workloads @stock then 2x5698.