Xeon e5 2690 vs. i7 3930K

[Archi_B]

Hello,

I`m wondering how is i7 3930K (or i7-3960X) is holding up to the Xeon E5 2690 eight core; i saw that hp realeased their new workstation z820 wich supports a variety of 8 core processors (even dual 8 cores = 16 cores) but the system is very expensive.
So in terms to performance how are the six core i7 3930K (or i7-3960X) in comparison with 8 cores processors? Are the 8 cores E5``s really worth it? are they really that powerfull and fast? becouse, as i said in financial terms a i7 3930K system would be half the money (or more)
* i couldnd find a proper benchmark where the E5`s were listed

any help would be much appreciated

 

[blazorthon]

The 8 cores with reduced clock speed are fairly similar to the X79 i7 six core CPUs in highly threaded performance and inferior in lightly threaded performance. The Xeons are more expensive because of their more server/workstation oriented features (ECC memory compatibility, more stable, multi-CPUs per board compatibility, etc.), not because of them being faster, except for the fastest of the Xeons (IE an eight core Xeon with a higher than 3GHz clock frequency and the ten core Xeons).

 

[Archi_B]

thanks for your imput blazorthon,
regarding ppl`s general opinion this is what i found out:

"For the money that you spent, dual E5s do not perform anywhere near that much faster than systems equipped with single i7-39xx CPUs. In fact, dual E5s might actually perform slower than single i7s in H.264 encodes due to the excessive latencies in the switching in dual-CPU systems (and the more CPUs within the single system, the greater the latency)."

 

[Archi_B]

"Here is one major problem with all dual-CPU setups (not just dual e5s):

No dual-CPU system performs anywhere near twice as fast as an otherwise comparable single-CPU system. In fact, without all of the latencies and bottlenecks that switchers, disk systems and graphics systems impose on the system, a dual-CPU system performs at best 41 percent faster than a single-CPU system. (In fact, one would need a quad-CPU system just to theoretically double the overall performance of a given single-CPU system.) Add in the chipset, disks and GPU, and the performance advantage could plummet to less than 20 percent. That's way too small of a performance improvement for such an astronomical increase in total system cost (which could amount to double or even triple the cost of an otherwise comparable single-CPU system). And that's not to mention that the second CPU increases the total system cost by at least $2,000 up to a whopping $6,000. No wonder why dual-CPU systems are relatively poor values (bang-for-the-buck)."

 

[Archi_B]

"so far i am not impressed with the new Xeons..
we have a dual here but having issues with it. at some point we will have #s

we ran up a single Xeon 8 core (they drop into X79 boards) against the rest. is was soundly beat by everything
NOTE: these DO NOT overclock

once again GHZ is king over core count..

CS5.5
Video material - AVCHD 1080P 24 Frame Each Cut to 30 minutes of material
Export Codec - H264 HDTV 1080P 24 Preset Default
4 Effects per Layer - Fast Color Corrector, Brightness & Contrast, Video Limiter, Sharpen
Each Layer Scaled to 50% for 4 frame PinP view.

E5 2670 @ 2.6 GHz 8 CORE
32GB 1600
570GTX 2.5GB
4 1Tb Sata 32 Meg Cache 600 Drives in 2 Raid 0 arrays
CS5.5.2
3 Layer -
4 Layer - 40:41

X79 3.3 @ 3.8 GHz
32GB 1333
580GTX 3GB
4 1Tb Sata 32 Meg Cache 600 Drives in 2 Raid 0 arrays
CS5.5.2
3 Layer - 32:15
4 Layer - 35:19

X79 3.3 @ 4.5 GHz
32GB 1333
580GTX 3GB
4 1Tb Sata 32 Meg Cache 600 Drives in 2 Raid 0 arrays
CS5.5.2
3 Layer - 27:43
4 Layer - 30:02

I7 2600K 4.7 GHz 4 core
16GB Blackline 1600 CL 9
570GTX
4 WD 1Tb Sata 64 Meg Cache 600 Drives in 2 Raid 0 arrays
3 Layer - 30:46
4 Layer - 33:36

Scott
ADK"

 

[Archi_B]

* these were quotes from ppl who have or tested the Xeon E5`s
* personally my choice would be i7 3930K (or i7-3960X), becouse i didnt read anywhere that someone is that impressed with the Xeon E5`s performance, as one said : "once again GHZ is king over core count.."

*still waiting to hear other ppl`s opinion, thanks

 

[blazorthon]

The E5-2670 and the i7-3930K and the i7-3960X should all be about equal in highly threaded performance (12/16 threads in this context) and the i7s pull ahead significantly in anything that uses less than 16 threads. Same goes for the E5-2690. If these are your CPU choices, then get an i7-3930K or an i7-2700 and overclock it to about 5GHz (or whatever it will go to at below 1.4v). If you are also willing to overclock the i7-3930K, then you can probably get it up to about 4.5 or 4.6GHz (maybe a little higher) with an $80-$100 cooler.

 

[Archi_B]

thanks blazorthon, well i`m looking for a new computer for work, and i must say that i have little experience with building one, most of my computers, laptops, current workstation is HP ( i am a hp fan)
so what i currently have i mind is this:
HPE Phoenix h9se series
- 2nd Generation Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3960X six-core processor [3.3GHz, Shared 15MB Cache]
- 16GB DDR3-1333MHz SDRAM [4 DIMMs]
- 256GB Solid state drive
- 1GB DDR5 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti [2 DVI, mini-HDMI. VGA adapter]

Hp: total cost 2400$

 

[Archi_B]

is this worth it or should i consider a custom buid(ask a friend to help), that for the same amount of money get better hardware?

 

[blazorthon]

Get the i7-3930K instead of the i7-3960X. It has nearly identical performance to the 3960X at all workloads for $400 less money. Also, I recommend getting 1600MHz memory. It should cost about the same as 1333MHz memory does if you buy the memory yourself from a site such as newegg. Make sure that you get 1.5v quad channel memory if you do.

Honestly, it would probably be about half the cost if you build it yourself and you would get higher quality components at the same time. HP and the other OEMs al overcharge (some more than others. HP seems to be rather decent about their prices compared to their competition, especially with the huge amounts of discounts they send me after I registered my HP wireless printer a few months ago), but they still overcharge. Granted, it's just so they make a profit and they are also giving you the benefit of having built the machine and giving you support for it, I don't think it is worth it.

However, I am fairly good at fixing any problem myself and I have a lot of experience with building computers. Honestly, building a computer is very easy. I did it as a child without a problem and know a few other people who did the same. It used to be a little more difficult (there was a time where RAM upgrades meant soldering the RAM chips to the modules, not jsut sticking the modules into a one way entry slot and we had to make sure all of these settings such as IRQ were proper and wouldn't conflict with each other. Then before even that, we also had DOS that would need a ton of work for any hardware upgrade and even installing a program could be a hassle. Then before that, there was the really hard stuff). However, building a modern computer today is so easy, that someone with no experience doing it could manage with a simple and quick manual (many free, online manuals exist that are only a few pages long). Someone who is fairly smart could probably do it without a manual.

If you really want HP, then maybe you could get an HP with some of the minimum components and buy some of the components your self and install them. It shouldn't cost much more than building it yourself and it has the added bonus of HP support and such. For example, you could get it with the cheapest memory option, buy the memory yourself for a fraction of the price (OEM companies overcharge RAM especially). You could also get a cheaper graphics card option (if one is available) and buy the card yourself and then sell the card that HP sent it with on Ebay or Amazon, etc.

OEM computers tend to get more overcharged as they go up in performance. For example, for a low end machine, you might get the same performance for a home built machine, but for a high end machine, you might pay 50% to several times what it would cost to build it yourself. The memory and video card are usually the worst offenders in cost. Since you were opting for a fairly low end grapics card (at the bottom of the middle end class today, won't be long before it is considered the top of the low end class), you probably weren't getting a price as bad as a similar gaming machine would have, but it still seems like too much money for such a system.

Considering that Tom's built an X79 computer with some frills for looks and noise reduction that had a 3930K and Radeon 7970 (the 7970 alone was about $600 of that budget), I'd say that you should try either a home built or a partially home built such as what I suggested. If you have a friend that can help, then it would just be even easier.

Going for something similar except with less frills (cheaper case, PSU, CPU cooler) and the GTX 550 TI instead of the powerhouse of a 7970, you should be able to get something similar (or greater than) the specs that you listed for about $1200-$1400.

I have to say, although I like HP more than many of the other OEMs, their CEO seems to be an idiot. She said that she thought that Google was going to make Android closed source in a public, official statement, despite that being impossible because it is based on GNU Linux. According to the GNU licensing, it is illegal to do that, so Google can't make Android closed source even if they wanted to. However, I wouldn't hold that against the company if they have something worth buying (I like the looks of their Llano laptops too).

Sorry for the long post, I had a lot to say this time.

 

[Archi_B]

thanks blazorthon, your help is much appreciated!

I will take your advice and try a home bulid(with the help of friend), but i will still need some help with the overall specs(this is what i have in mind):

1.case: Fractal Design Define XL Titanium Grey w/ USB 3.0 ATX Full Tower Silent PC Computer Case
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811352018
149.99$

2.cpu cooler: Phanteks PH-TC14PE_BK 140mm UFB (Updraft Floating Balance) CPU Cooler
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835709011
99.99$

3.psu: CORSAIR Professional Series Gold AX850 (CMPSU-850AX) 850W ATX12V v2.31 / EPS12V v2.92 80 PLUS GOLD
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139015
189.99$

4.mobo: ASUS Rampage IV Extreme LGA 2011 Intel X79 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 Extended ATX Intel Motherboard
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131802&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&AID=10446076&PID=3899435&SID=skim1402X558040Xe4e867183dbb1266326619c17c7e8ab8
429.99$

5.cpu: Intel Core i7-3930K Sandy Bridge-E 3.2GHz (3.8GHz Turbo) LGA 2011 130W Six-Core Desktop Processor BX80619i73930K
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116492
599.99$

6.ram: G.SKILL Ripjaws Z Series 16GB (4 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1866 (PC3 14900) Desktop Memory Model F3-14900CL8Q-16GBZM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231539&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&AID=10446076&PID=3899435&SID=skim1402X558040X1f72884b411c17f70349a00db0be25c0
149.99$

7.ssd: OCZ Vertex 3 VTX3-25SAT3-120G 2.5" 120GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227706
159.99$

8.graphic card: EVGA 015-P3-1480-KR GeForce GTX 480 (Fermi) 1536MB 384-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130759
249.99$

Total: about 2030$

 

[Archi_B]

Please let me know what u think in terms of performance, power supply, cooling, etc.

*and also if i can cut on cost, please let me know where can i do that

 

[blazorthon]

The 1866MHz RAM is unnecessary unless you are doing archiving/rendering and a lot of it. You didn't state the intent of this build yet (or at least I missed it if you did), so I'll ask now, what exactly does it need to do? If it's not archiving/rendering/folding, then 1600MHz memory would be the better option if it's much cheaper than the 1866MHz memory because the faster 1866MHz memory will not make a difference in many other workloads than these.

I'll take a look and see what I can recommend. G.Skill is a great manufacturer for RAM, only matched by Corsair (Corsair is among the very best in pretty much everything they do and G.Skill is also great), but unless you need the extra performance, it's better to not waste money on something that is more trivial than a better SSD if you don't do work that likes the better RAM.

The GTX 480 is about three years old, so a newer card would be more appropriate. For example, a GTX 580 or Radeon 7950 or 7870, or you could go for a high performance professional card (all assuming that you need the graphics horsepower. If you don't then sticking with something like the 550 TI or a 7750/7770 would be a better idea) such as a Quadro.

The PSU is also a pretty expensive PSU for this. You could just as easily get a Corsair 80+ Bronze PSU with enough wattage for this build at less than $80. If this build is supposed to last many years, then the money might be made up over time due to the Gold and Platinum PSUs being a little more power efficient than the Bronzes and Silvers, but if it's not more than about three years or so, the price difference is probably greater than the cost for the power usage difference.

The case is good (you might want a cheaper one, but that's more personal preference than anything else in the computer), the CPU is good, the SSD is not something that I'd recommend. Instead of an OCZ SSD, go for an Intel, Crucial, or Samsung. Intel's 310/320 and 510/520 lines, Crucial's M4s, and Samsung's 830s are generally the most reliable consumer SSDs.

I'll take a look at some RAM, SSDs, graphics cards, etc. after I know for sure what this computer must do.

 

[Archi_B]

well the computer is for 3d modelling and rendering in programs like Archicad and Artlantis, alltough in rendering they are only using cpu NOT gpu(i have to say that on my current workstation i have quadro 5000, wich for my work was a waste of money, as it is not really being used)

quote:"the graphic card plays a role in displaying the scene in the preview and 2D window, but it doesn't play any role during the rendering process.
Artlantis 4 being of 64-bit requests (as all 62-bit applications in general) minimum 4 GB RAM, so the more you have the better is. The processor is very important in the final calculation, the same are the number of cores: Artlantis can deal with 8 cores maximum."

other quote:
"Is it normal that rendering is only made by the CPU?
My FGX card works on rendering at 0% !?

If its normal... why dont render with gfx card? it would be way faster!

hope for an answer..

reply:yes, it is normal. This is the way Artlantis calculates the renderings."

 

[blazorthon]

Okay then, stick with the 1866MHz memory. Maybe even overclock it to 2133MHz (many purchasers of that kit overclock it to 2133MHz). A super fast graphics card is not necessary, just like you said. Stick with a low end card. I recommend that you choose a card that does not need a PCIe power connecter (the card draws all of it's power from the PCIe slot, thus it uses a maximum of 75w).

If you want a better card for a different purpose in addition to rendering, then by all means get one, but the very fastest that I would recommend is the Radeon 7750 if you don't want the extra graphics power. That also reduces the necessary wattage requirements for your PSU. You should do great with a 600w PSU even if you choose to upgrade the graphics or something else, within reason. I'll do my quick look through for good SSDs and PSUs now.

 

[blazorthon]

SSDs

Plextor M3 Series 128GB current price is $139.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820249014


SAMSUNG 830 Series 128GB current price is $159.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147163&Tpk=N82E16820147163

The Plextor has far better random writes, but the Samsung has far better sequential writes. I wasn't quite sure which one that you would want, so I put them both up. However, despite it's loss in sequential, the Plextor has a five star rating and the Samsung has a 4 star rating. I read all of the ratings and noticed that the Samsung's 4 star ratings are mostly because of stupid people, so it might as well be a five star, at least in my opinion. Despite that, I like the Plextor's random write advantage more and the Samsung is a little annoying because it has a bloatware program that needs to be installed in order to find out what firmware version it has (you must fully update an SSD's firmware every time you can, unless you know for a fact that the current version is good and don't know for a fact that the next version(s) is(are) good). You can uninstall the program after you check the firmware with it, but I still don't like that. The Plextor doesn't seem to have such a problem and it's a good $20 cheaper.

Other than the two trading off between sequential and random write speeds, the two are very similar drives with very close random and sequential read speeds. Still, Plextor has my vote on this one, but I don't know if you want the sequential write or random write advantage, so they're both here.

PSUs

All of these are average 5 star ratings with a minimum of 78% and all prices include shipping, MIR, and instant discounts.


Corsair Professional Series 750w 80+ SILVER current price is $129.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139010&cm_sp=Cat_Power_Supplies-_-Spotlight-_-17-139-010

Antec 550w 80+ current price is $75.17
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371016

Corsair Gaming Series 800w 80+ current price is $125.98
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139025

Corsair 750w 80+ current price is $135.98
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139006

Corsair Enthusiast Series 650w 80+ current price is $94.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139005

I wasn't sure which one that you would want, but these are all five star rated PSUs. The first Corsair and the Antec have about 550 reviews total, the next Corsair only has 47, the next Corsair has almost 2400 reviews, and the last one has almost 1800 reviews. Excluding the Corsair Gaming series, these are all huge numbers, so any of them would be a great choice since they are known to have a very low percentage of failure. They all have the mid-range wattages that I'd recommend and decent prices, so take your pick. I'm kinda leaning towards either the Antec if you want to get the cheapest of them, or the first Corsair for the most efficient. Either way, the Antec is in no way skimping at all despite the lower price and any of them should be great.

As for the graphics card, if you already have a Quadro 5000 in one workstation, do you plan on keeping that workstation? If this one is replacing it, then you could just move that Quadro over, or sell it and get a cheaper card instead. As much as it doesn't help much, you already have it, so it might as well not be put to waste if it's not doing much good where it is. You could probably sell it for a lot of money, use some of that money to buy a cheaper card, and pocket the remaining cash for something else. If you still want the current workstation, then maybe you could sell the 5000 anyway and get two cheaper cards? Either way, if it's not doing much good where it is, then I think that you should do something about it. It's just wasting electricity if it's not doing much good.

Sorry it took so long... Life caught up to me for a few days and I kinda forgot afterwards. Better late than never, at least I hope so.

 

[nikorr]

Best answer selected by Nikorr.

 

[nikorr]

This topic has been closed by Nikorr