$21 used CPU that competes with new $100+ CPUs from Intel and AMD in GTA V?

[cbn]

While doing research in this thread, I finally came across the cheap processors from LGA 1366, the 45nm Nehalem quad cores with hyperthreading. The top bin One of the better bins, X5570 with 2.93 Ghz base clock and 3.33 Ghz turbo starts at $21 shipped on ebay "Buy it now" listings.

Then I was surprised to see the stock speed Core i5 750 and Core i7 860 do well against both the Core i3 -4130 and FX-6350 in PC Lab's GTA V (CPU #2) benchmarks using both R9 290X OC and GTX 970 OC:

http://pclab.pl/art57777-23.html

Core i3-4130= min 20 FPS, avg 24.9 FPS
Core i7 860= min 20 FPS, avg 24.4 FPS
Core i5 750= min 19 FPS, avg 23.2 FPS
FX 6350= min 18 FPS, avg 22.5 FPS

http://pclab.pl/art57777-22.html

Core i3-4130= min 29 FPS, avg 34.5 FPS
Core i7 860= min 28 FPS, avg 33.6 FPS
Core i5 750= min 27 FPS, avg 32 FPS
FX 6350= min 25 FPS, avg 30.1 FPS

According to Anandtech's review of the Core i7 860 here, the Bloomfield Nahelem processors were roughly in the same IPC ballpark as Lynnfield Nehalem processors in gaming tasks.

Comparing base clocks, Xeon X5570 has 133 Mhz advantage (2.93 Ghz vs. 2.80 GHz) compared to Core i7 860. On the turbo clock, the Core i7 860 has the 133 Mhz advanatage (3.46 Ghz vs. 333 Mhz).

So I'm thinking Xeon X5570 would be comparable to Core i7 860, but at about 1/3 the used market price. And much less than new processors from Intel (Core i3-4130) and AMD (FX 6350).

Of course, realize the I/O is going to be older on Nehalem based systems (compared to AM3+ with 970 chipset and LGA 1150). And idle will certainly be higher on LGA 1366 compared to a Haswell system. However, these are separate issues from gaming performance.

 

[cbn]

Results from Witcher 3: Wild hunt:

https://translate.googleusercontent...7.html&usg=ALkJrhji64D4CSU_VIypvwvH1vDF9OhMvA

(GTX 970 OC Video card)

FX 6350= min 50 FPS, avg 53.2 FPS
Core i7 860= min 49 FPS, avg 52.8 FPS
Core i3 4150= min 46 FPS, avg 50.5 FPS
Core i5 750= min 44 FPS, avg 47.8 FPS

https://translate.googleusercontent...8.html&usg=ALkJrhjqLv2Y7JQz3CkIRwSZtPqZIbsixg


(R9 290X OC Video card)

Core i7 860= min 28 FPS, avg 34.4 FPS
Core i3 4150= min 26 FPS, avg 32.6 FPS
FX 6350= min 20 FPS, avg 31.1 FPS
Core i5 750= min 24 FPS, avg 30.9 FPS

Core i7 860 did the best out of the processors I listed for the R9 290X OC results and second best for the GTX 970 OC results (losing to the FX-6350). It also beat the Core i3 4150 in both benchmarks.

So the the trend of stock clocked Nehalem holding up against newer processors exists in this game as well.

 

[PG]

I don't think you are wrong, but now go look for a decent board.

If you look on ebay you will see that X58 boards are selling for over $100, and good ones for near $200. A quick glance makes me think you better be willing to pay $150 average.

So the cpu + board is $175 at least, and the boards are usually without UEFI, USB3, and SATA3.

You would be better off with an i3 and a cheap board probably.

 

[cbn]

I don't think you are wrong, but now go look for a decent board.

If you look on ebay you will see that X58 boards are selling for over $100, and good ones for near $200. A quick glance makes me think you better be willing to pay $150 average.

So the cpu + board is $175 at least, and the boards are usually without UEFI, USB3, and SATA3.

You would be better off with an i3 and a cheap board probably.

Yes, the price of DIY X58 boards was one of the my complaints.

However, the LGA 1366 Workstations seem to be priced decently and usually come with Windows 7 Pro. For example, Newegg has the Dell T5500 on sale for $189.99 free shipping--> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883158068&cm_re=T5500-_-83-158-068-_-Product ( Xeon E5504, 4GB, 500 GB HDD, Windows 7 Pro, 1 year limited warranty). With a X5570 swapped in this would come out to ~$211 free shipping.

So a complete LGA 1366 system with OS is not that much more than a X58 board, although keep in mind the Workstations can't be overclocked for extra gains.

P.S. That workstation I linked is actually a 2P Workstation, although it can run with only one processor. There are also LGA 1366 Workstations that use only 1 processor (Dell T3500, HP Z400, Lenovo S20). Most of the time these 1P Workstations are cheaper than the 2P, but not always.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I don't 100% get it. Are you advocating for the i7-860 (which is 1156 - boards are rare for this socket), or for 1366 Xeons?

 

[cbn]

I don't 100% get it. Are you advocating for the i7-860 (which is 1156 - boards are rare for this socket), or for 1366 Xeons?

I'm using the i7 860 as an approximation to the Xeon X5570 because I don't have modern gaming results using Bloomfield processors.

EDIT: If IPC differences were found for Bloomfield vs. Lynmfield outside of games tested by Anandtech someone please let me know.

 

[PG]

Yes, the price of DIY X58 boards was one of the my complaints.

However, the LGA 1366 Workstations seem to be priced decently and usually come with Windows 7 Pro. For example, Newegg has the Dell T5500 on sale for $189.99 free shipping--> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883158068&cm_re=T5500-_-83-158-068-_-Product ( Xeon E5504, 4GB, 500 GB HDD, Windows 7 Pro, 1 year limited warranty). With a X5570 swapped in this would come out to ~$211 free shipping.

So a complete LGA 1366 system with OS is not that much more than a X58 board, although keep in mind the Workstations can't be overclocked for extra gains.

P.S. That workstation I linked is actually a 2P Workstation, although it can run with only one processor. There are also LGA 1366 Workstations that use only 1 processor (Dell T3500, HP Z400, Lenovo S20). Most of the time these 1P Workstations are cheaper than the 2P, but not always.

Nice, I didn't know about those. That could be a really good deal.
I did a quick google search and it seems like some of those actually could take a cheap 6 core. It all depends on the board, but at least there is a chance:
http://en.community.dell.com/what-do-i-buy/for_enterprise/f/4516/t/19567187

 

[cbn]

Nice, I didn't know about those. That could be a really good deal.
I did a quick google search and it seems like some of those actually could take a cheap 6 core. It all depends on the board, but at least there is a chance:
http://en.community.dell.com/what-do-i-buy/for_enterprise/f/4516/t/19567187

The following poster in that thread you linked claims the both the older and newer T5500 boards work with X5660 hexcore (with a BIOS update):

Hi,

just to add my experiences. I have 2 T5500's and both have been running fantastically well.

The first came with a single x5660 and aluminium heat sink. It didn't overheat, but I upgraded to twin x5660's, added the beefier U016F and maxed it up to 72GB - well I believe it's the max, but that's another topic It's been running perfectly. The motherboard is the newer 0CHR6C.

I managed to pick up a second machine and daughter board for little money. This had the older 0D883F motherboard. I had a couple of spare x5660's and really struggled to find info to say whether these would work on the older motherboard. I decided to update to the latest BIOS, and installed both x5660 and 18GB memory. It all worked fine and no overheating issues. Again, I upgraded to the better heatsink.

On the first machine, I did some stress testing with the aluminium heating and never really hit any problems, but I didn't run for a particular long time. I preferred to use others experience and go for the better U016F. They can be still be picked up relatively inexpensively. I suspect in part, the act of renewing the thermal paste and ensuring a good build helped as much as anything.

So to conclude, I think you can get hold of these machines for very little money, upgrade to the x56xx series, pick up plenty of second hand ECC RAM (which is cheaper than P.C. equivalent) and get a great value performance workstation. If you are able to make use of the multi-cores, pair up with a decent graphics card, the performance is fantastic.

I think the only thing I'd do now, is perhaps look at a SSD. I suspect correctly configures, start up and office software speed would be even better.

Hope that helps.

It'll be great to hear how you get on with yours and how any upgrades go.

 

[cbn]

GTA V with overclocked G3258 and overclocked Athlon x4 860K results added below charts:

http://pclab.pl/art57777-23.html

(R9 290X OC)

Overclocked G3258 (4.5 Ghz)= min 15 FPS, avg 26.1 FPS
Core i3-4130= min 20 FPS, avg 24.9 FPS
Core i7 860= min 20 FPS, avg 24.4 FPS
Core i5 750= min 19 FPS, avg 23.2 FPS
FX 6350= min 18 FPS, avg 22.5 FPS
Overclocked Athlon x4 860K (4.6 Ghz) = min 18 FPS, avg 21.6 FPS

http://pclab.pl/art57777-22.html

(GTX 970 OC)

Core i3-4130= min 29 FPS, avg 34.5 FPS
Core i7 860= min 28 FPS, avg 33.6 FPS
Core i5 750= min 27 FPS, avg 32 FPS
Overclocked G3258 (4.5 Ghz)= min 15 FPS, avg 31.7 FPS
FX 6350= min 25 FPS, avg 30.1 FPS
Overclocked Athlon x4 860K (4.6 Ghz)= min 25FPS, avg 29.9 FPS

 

[cbn]

Witcher 3: Wild Hunt with overclocked G3258 and overclocked Athlon x4 860K results added below charts:

https://translate.googleusercontent...8.html&usg=ALkJrhjqLv2Y7JQz3CkIRwSZtPqZIbsixg

(R9 290X OC)

Core i7 860= min 28 FPS, avg 34.4 FPS
Core i3 4150= min 26 FPS, avg 32.6 FPS
FX 6350= min 20 FPS, avg 31.1 FPS
Core i5 750= min 24 FPS, avg 30.9 FPS
Overclocked Athlon x4 860K (4.6 Ghz)= min 19 FPS, avg 30.2 FPS
Overclocked G3258 (4.5 Ghz)= min 20 FPS, avg 28.7 FPS

https://translate.googleusercontent...7.html&usg=ALkJrhji64D4CSU_VIypvwvH1vDF9OhMvA

(GTX 970 OC)

FX 6350= min 50 FPS, avg 53.2 FPS
Core i7 860= min 49 FPS, avg 52.8 FPS
Core i3 4150= min 46 FPS, avg 50.5 FPS
Core i5 750= min 44 FPS, avg 47.8 FPS
Overclocked Athlon x4 860K (4.6 Ghz)= min 37 FPS, avg 44.5 FPS
Overclocked G3258 (4.5 Ghz)= min 32 FPS, avg 37.1 FPS

 

[sm625]

So a complete LGA 1366 system with OS is not that much more than a X58 board

You got it. CPU performance has gone basically nowhere the last 5 years. Only the power efficiency has really increased during this time. That is a big deal for the server industry, but not such a big deal for the home user. So we are the beneficiaries of this glut of oldish server hardware that indeed works perfectly fine. Once you put the used CPU's cost savings towards a GPU, you always come out way ahead.

Actually it is kind of a malinvestment even in the IT field. You can never make up the cost of fielding new equipment simply because it uses 40% less energy. But hey if companies want to malinvest, good for them. It just means an even bigger glut down the road.

 

[happy medium]

I didn't realize how slower cpu's run games much slower on AMD cards compared to Nvidia cards. Look at the i3 4160 results and compare the 290x vs gtx970.

 

[Headfoot]

Just built a secondary computer for really cheap using a $45 used i5 750, $50 used p55, 2x4GB of DDR3 1333 I had laying around, a case I had laying around, a watercooler I had laying around, an old Acer 1080p monitor I had laying around, and a $100 used 7950 Boost.

Surprisingly competent gaming machine.

 

[waltchan]

You got it. CPU performance has gone basically nowhere the last 5 years. Only the power efficiency has really increased during this time.

For Intel and AMD respectively, LGA1155 Sandy Bridge in 2011 and FM2 Trinity in 2011 pretty much confirm why we don't need another new PC for the rest of our lives. A 2011 PC is just as competitive and fast with 2016 models.

 

[cbn]

Some more results, this time with Project Cars:

http://pclab.pl/art63572-29.html

http://pclab.pl/art63572-32.html

In each of the benchmarks, stock speed Core i7 860 beats the stock speed FX-6350. However, Core i3 4150 does better than Core i7 860 in all benchmarks.

So while this game doesn't appear to be as multi-threaded as the other games, Core i7 860 still does relatively well.

 

[Yuriman]

My thoughts:

A Haswell i3 paired with a cheap H81 board comes out to less than $150, and is generally taking the crown in benchmarks against these older i5's and i7's. You can sometimes even pick up complete used Haswell i3 servers and workstations for <$200. Given the minimal price difference, I find it hard to justify going with the older hardware in most cases.

That said, it can make a lot of sense if you snag a 1366 or 1156 board for next to nothing, or if every penny counts and you're going to be making effective use of the extra threads.

I think a larger issue is that most people don't take i3's seriously. They're as good or better gaming chips than FX-8xxx CPUs and (stock) 1st-gen Core CPUs, and can be found for close to $100.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Not surprising, but with 1366, it's the motherboard that'll cost you (~$150+), while the CPUs are dirt cheap (i7 920 D0s can be purchased for ~$20, X5650 for ~$70).

While I will miss all of my i7 920 D0s (ranging from 4 - 4.1GHz OCed 24/7/365 since 2008/2009), it made sense to sell off the motherboards. Most of them fetched $200+ on eBay since I had the full retail box and accessories.

Replaced them with 2500Ks on Z77 mobos, which with patience, cost me less than $200 for each combo (and all OCed to 4.5 - 4.6GHz).

 

[cbn]

You can sometimes even pick up complete used Haswell i3 servers and workstations for <$200. Given the minimal price difference, I find it hard to justify going with the older hardware in most cases.

I think comparing a refurbed or used Haswell Core i3 pre-built to a used/refurb LGA 1366 Workstation is fair game.

But a Haswell Core i3 (especially a Tower form factor that can take full size video card) for under $200 will be tough. Also the power supplies on the Home/Business pre-builts tend to be small, while the 1P LGA 1366 Workstations come with decently sized units.

Maybe a better comparison would be a LGA 1150 Core i3 Pre-built to a LGA 1156 i7 860 Pre-built. (Main issue is that the LGA 1156 Pre-built would not have the cpu upgrade potential of the LGA 1150 or LGA 1366 machines)

 

[cbn]

So far, comparing results of Haswell Core i3 vs Core i7 860:

Core i3 4130 is up to 3% faster in GTA V than Core i7 860
Core i7 860 is up to 4% faster in Witcher 3 than Core i3 4150
Core i3 4150 is up to 8% faster in Project Cars than Core i7 860.

 

[soccerballtux]

..

 

[cbn]

I didn't realize how slower cpu's run games much slower on AMD cards compared to Nvidia cards. Look at the i3 4160 results and compare the 290x vs gtx970.

Here are the results for i3 4160 in Witcher 3 (GTA V didn't have a i3 4160 listed):

i3 4160 with GTX 970 OC: 48 min FPS, 51.9 avg FPS
i3 4160 with R9 290X OC: 27 min FPS, 33.5 avg FPS

compared to:
i7 4790K (OC) with GTX 970 OC: 73 min FPS, 77.3 avg FPS
i7 4790K (OC) with GTX R9 290X: 51 min FPS, 58.4 avg FPS

Doing the math, the Core i3 4160 + R9 290X OC scores about 57% of the avg frame rate compared to i7 4790K OC + R9 290X OC. Core i3 4160 + GTX 970 OC scores about 67 % of the avg frame rate compared to i7 4790K OC + 970 GTX OC.

So yes, the R9 290X OC loses a greater percentage of the maximum frame rate when paired with the i3 4160.

P.S. I also notice the GTX 970 OC also works better with high core count AMD CPUs in Witcher 3 compared to R9 290X OC. (For example, FX-8350 beat all Core i3s and two Core i5s when using 970 GTX, but loses to four of the Core i3s when using R9 290X OC)

 

[cbn]

Here are the results for i3 4160 in Witcher 3 (GTA V didn't have a i3 4160 listed):

i3 4160 with GTX 970 OC: 48 min FPS, 51.9 avg FPS
i3 4160 with R9 290X OC: 27 min FPS, 33.5 avg FPS

compared to:
i7 4790K (OC) with GTX 970 OC: 73 min FPS, 77.3 avg FPS
i7 4790K (OC) with GTX R9 290X: 32 min FPS, 37.1 avg FPS

Doing the math, the Core i3 4160 + R9 290X OC scores about 57% of the avg frame rate compared to i7 4790K OC + R9 290X OC. Core i3 4160 + GTX 970 OC scores about 67 % of the avg frame rate compared to i7 4790K OC + 970 GTX OC.

So yes, the R9 290X OC loses a greater percentage of the maximum frame rate when paired with the i3 4160.

P.S. I also notice the GTX 970 OC also works better with high core count AMD CPUs in Witcher 3 compared to R9 290X OC. (For example, FX-8350 beat all Core i3s and two Core i5s when using 970 GTX, but loses to four of the Core i3s when using R9 290X OC)

Overclocked G3258 results in Witcher 3 for comparison:

OC G3258 with GTX 970 OC: 32 min FPS, 37.1 avg FPS
OC G3258 with GTX R9 290X: 20 min FPS, 28.7 avg FPS

OC G3258 with GTX 970 OC yields 48% of the i7 4790K (OC) + GTX 970 OC frame rate.
OC G3258 with GTX R9 290X yields 55% i7 4790K (OC) + GTX 970 OC frame rate

So with the 2C/2T OC G3258 the situation is the reverse.....and the R9 290X OC actually preserves more FPS compared to GTX 970.

 

[sm625]

Overclocked G3258 results in Witcher 3 for comparison:

OC G3258 with GTX 970 OC: 32 min FPS, 37.1 avg FPS
OC G3258 with GTX R9 290X: 20 min FPS, 28.7 avg FPS

OC G3258 with GTX 970 OC yields 48% of the i7 4790K (OC) + GTX 970 OC frame rate.
OC G3258 with GTX R9 290X yields 55% i7 4790K (OC) + GTX 970 OC frame rate

So with the 2C/2T OC G3258 the situation is the reverse.....and the R9 290X OC actually preserves more FPS compared to GTX 970.

Yeah but since one is playable and the other is not, I dont think its a valid comparison. You should compare settings where all cards and all CPU configurations are yielding playable framerates.

 

[myocardia]

EDIT: If IPC differences were found for Bloomfield vs. Lynmfield outside of games tested by Anandtech someone please let me know.

If there are any IPC differences, and I'm sure there are, they are tiny. Something along the lines of -½% to +1½% type of "difference". Either way, the Bloomfield is the slightly higher performance of the two, so...

 

[dragantoe]

Any way to get some gulftown or lynnfield results? I want to see how the 990x or a hex xeon would perform