i7 low GHz vs Xeon high GHz

Rojlani

Reputable
Feb 5, 2015
55
0
4,630
Hi all,

I know that gaming requires high GHz because games typically use very few threads.

On a 2011v3 Socket, the i7 5960X has eight cores with 3GHz, and the Xeon E5-2643v3 is four cores with 3.4GHz.

Is it true, that the Xeon is better for gaming?

(nVidia Geforce are currently using this i7 in their benchmarks - i am confused)

Cheers
 
Solution
Xeon is the unknown champion. I myself bought the 1230v3. After doing some research, I found that for a little more cost than the regular i5, I could get i7 performance with minus the integrated graphics. If you have a dedicated GPU, Xeons are the real deal.
Yes, in general that Xeon would be a little bit better in games. It's a very small difference though. The Xeon turbos up to 3.7 GHz, the Core i7 turbos up to 3.5 GHz.

Edit: Just checked, that Xeon actually has 6 cores. The 2637v3 is a quad core with very similar clocks though.
 

Brillis Wuce

Distinguished
Xeon is the unknown champion. I myself bought the 1230v3. After doing some research, I found that for a little more cost than the regular i5, I could get i7 performance with minus the integrated graphics. If you have a dedicated GPU, Xeons are the real deal.
 
Solution


There will be some differences in a few games, but mostly very small differences. Here is a comparison between a Core i7-4770K and 5960X. Biggest differences in F1 and Bioshock Infinite.
 

Eettwartti

Reputable
Feb 9, 2015
18
0
4,520


Yes. In most of games that only can take advantage 4 cores. In games like battlefield 4 the 8 core monster should perform better.
 

Eettwartti

Reputable
Feb 9, 2015
18
0
4,520
You can overclock the i7-5960x to almost 4,5ghz with pretty cheap air cooling solution. But yes if not overclocked the i7-5960x will use in badly programmed games which do not take advantage of multiple threads instead of 1-4.
Games are starting to take more advantage of the cores now, because the consoles both have 8 cores now(correct me if I'm wrong.)
 


The 5930K is practically never worth the money. The 5820K and 5960X are the ones that make sense in that family.
 

iLiftFood

Reputable
Dec 5, 2014
776
0
5,160
5930k is half the price of the 5960x yet the 5930k has a higher clock speed. The only thing the 5960x has is 2 more cores (useless) and a bit more cache (still useless considering the 5930k has more than enough as it is.)
 


The 5930K has no real advantage over the cheaper 5820K. The 5960X has a real advantage over the 5930K, even if you pay through the nose for it. The only relevant CPUs in that family are the 5820K and the 5960X.
 
In pure performance per dollar, it isn't. But sometimes you just need extra performance, value for money be damned; then the 5960X makes sense.

The problem with the 5930K is that it doesn't offer extra performance over the 5820K, unless you run at stock clocks only (a bit pointless on unlocked CPUs). All you get for the extra money is more PCIe lanes, which are practically never useful anyway.
 

DubbleClick

Admirable
In performance per dollar, no X?9 chipset cpu is worth it. And it probably never will. It's an enthusiast lineup for people who are happy to spend a grand for performance increases. Speaking strictly of performance with factoring dollars in at a lower priority, the i7 5930k is the one that doesn't make sense.