• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Question Does a purchase of a E5-1650v3 make sense today?

GeezerMan

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2005
2,097
3
81
A local computer shop deals in retired corporate computers . They have heavy, well made workstations with
Xeon E5-1650v3, ( passmark 13618,) six cores (2 logical cores per physical)
16 GB DDR4 @ 2133MHz ,
700 watt ps,
two 15K SAS Hard Disk Drives,
256GB Solid State Drive ,
quadro 4200,
windows 10 pro.
These parts are all obsolete now, and the cpu is a 140 watt monster!.

They sell these for about 400 bucks.

opinions please for use as a video encoder, maybe some gaming with a different card compared to building a new Ryzen machine

thanks
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,565
1,047
126
For the money, that's going to be basically unbeatable. There's even a respectable upgrade path with higher core count CPUs, though for mixed use, the 1650 makes more sense than many of the high core/low clock models.

Just pricing out loosey goosey here :

Ryzen 5 1600 $145
Asus B450 Mobo $80
16GB DDR4 2400 $60
Thermaltake 700W PSU $50
256GB SSD $30 (no-name stuff)
Mid-Tower Basic but sturdy case $40 (Versa H22)
Radeon 240 or GT 720/etc $30
Windows 10 Pro $120

$555, or $435ish if you don't need an OS. You can always risk a cdkeys type site for that at a discount rate, but buyer beware on that front of course.
+ for the new build would be stuff like USB 3.1, M.2 native, and upgrade path to Ryzen 3000 series. Of course, to do the Ryzen build more justice, you'd want to do stuff like X470 or 570 board, 3000/3200 DDR4 or better, and so on. Just going to a solid $130ish board and better memory and name brand SSD would take that build well past $600 in a flash.

The DDR4 on the Xeon box being 2133 is actually not a problem either. It's quad channel, so as long as you have at least one bank filled, it does indeed perform at twice what you'd expect due to the doubled bandwidth. I've directly compared Quad Channel DDR3 on Xeon v2 to Dual Channel DDR4, and QC 1600 is slightly faster than DDR4 3200 in most things, due to the lower latency (eg; DDR3 1600 CL9 QC vs DDR4 3200 CL17). Another huge plus for the Xeon here is going to be an almost certain case of having 8 DIMM slots, and ECC/Registered capability, which opens you up to loads of cheap options for a crapton of ram. The 1650v3 supports 768MB of ram.

Obviously you can't go wrong with a (well balanced) Ryzen build, but there's something fun about getting a crazy Xeon box going, that probably cost in the $3000+ range new not long ago haha.

Is it a Z440 or T5810?

Another bonus for the 2011v3 platform is the 40 PCI Express 3.0 lanes. Pretty nice if you have say a PCIe to NVME adapter with a couple of NVME drives on it, and say a PCIe hardware 10GB lan adapter, and a full video card, well, everything will have lanes and not have to share, as it is on platforms with less lanes (regular Intel 115x is terrible in this regard, AM4 is a bit better but still only 24).

The Xeon workstations from major OEMs are typically overbuilt to the point of absurd levels in my experience as well. Rock solid power supplies, cases, motherboards, etc. Personally I've dealt with many of them from Lenovo, Dell, and HP, and virtually never see any of them fail, even after seeing many hundreds come and go over the years. I still have Lenovo S20s going on a decade (Socket 1366) that still run as strong as day one, still cranking away in various roles.
 

mindfury

Junior Member
Aug 29, 2010
10
0
66
You have to make sure motherboard/PSU in that workstation aren't some proprietary parts, otherwise you will end up with hard to find replacement parts and no upgrade path.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,565
1,047
126
You have to make sure motherboard/PSU in that workstation aren't some proprietary parts, otherwise you will end up with hard to find replacement parts and no upgrade path.
They basically all are, unfortunately.

It's a pro/con situation. These things in respect to the usual suspects : Lenovo S and P series 1366/2011s, HP Z4xx/6xx/8xx, Dell T-series and other Precisions, are all built to be sold to major corporate partners and customers with long warranties and intended for extremely heavy use and maximum uptime. Whereas on their consumer lines they're more than happy to cut corners with quality, be it cheap caps, borderline VRMs, spotty PSUs, etc, they dare not do this with these more lucrative models that sell in volume to businesses. Various disappointed customers from Walmart or Best Buy with consumer models may lose you one sale in the future, but a bad workstation model may lose you a customer who buys tens of thousands of units a year or more.

For that reason, you get systems that generally last beyond what one would reasonably expect for durability. I even have stacks of mid/late 00s Xeons (771) that still work fine, they're just old as hell. Failures are exceedingly rare.

Upgrade path is definitely going to be heavily favored for Ryzen, as you can get the upcoming 3000 series in any decent AM4 board. Though of course limited to 4 DIMMs Dual Channel and 64GB Ram instead of 8 DIMMs Quad Channel and 768GB. Maximum CPU for 2011v3 is the 18C/36T 2699v3. 2.3Ghz/3.6Ghz Turbo, 45MB Cache. Would probably be roughly equal to a Ryzen 2 3700 in multicore stuff, while a good bit slower for single-core/gaming.

For a hypothetical Ryzen 2600 vs 1650v3 + a midrange to upper midrange GPU (eg 1070-1660ti/2060/Vega 64/etc), you'd probably see a wash in gaming just @ GPU bottlenecks. With my 1080ti, I can see a gap between my 2700X and 8086k, but with my previous 1080 Strix 11Gbps (non-Ti) the gap was almost entirely erased, and in fact my son's 1650v2 S30 ran just as well with that card as my 5.1Ghz 8086k, the card was just maxed out already. In the future if you get a 2080ti or beyond, this should start to open up more, but we're in a very GPU limited space for gaming at present, probably due to stagnation with GPU performance (at least in the under $1k range), while CPU performance has been quite high for a pretty long time now. Which you can definitely tell if you lower things to 800x600 vsync off for testing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yeroon

GeezerMan

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2005
2,097
3
81
I have experience with the lower range C226 chipset workstations, so I really appreciate the detailed info here. Is there a preference between HP and the Dell? Looks like the HP is easier to work on
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
50,419
6,025
126
They sell these for about 400 bucks.

opinions please for use as a video encoder, maybe some gaming with a different card compared to building a new Ryzen machine
@Arkaign has explained better than I ever could, but for $400, I think that they are a good deal, for the money. For gaming, I would probably build a newer Ryzen rig. But for a video-editing / CAD / design workstation, yeah, those older Xeon Workstation machines, are really solid, and have decent performance besides. (That's about the extent of my knowledge, I've never owned one.)
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
21,128
9,258
136
@Arkaign has explained better than I ever could, but for $400, I think that they are a good deal, for the money. For gaming, I would probably build a newer Ryzen rig. But for a video-editing / CAD / design workstation, yeah, those older Xeon Workstation machines, are really solid, and have decent performance besides. (That's about the extent of my knowledge, I've never owned one.)
Yup, they are slower, but built like tanks. But 6 slow cores ? I don't know if I could stand it. I have a rig with 2 x 6 cores (Xeon 5670) with HT=24 threads@2.5 ghz, and one 8 core 2700x can beat it most of the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: killster1 and rUmX

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,565
1,047
126
Yup, they are slower, but built like tanks. But 6 slow cores ? I don't know if I could stand it. I have a rig with 2 x 6 cores (Xeon 5670) with HT=24 threads@2.5 ghz, and one 8 core 2700x can beat it most of the time.
Wow, yeah at 2.5, I think I wouldn't run it in a mixed role either (eg; gaming and desktop general use), though loads of slower threads are ok for of course DC and certain encoding roles, or a bunch of VMs if it suits.

The 1650v3 is a 3.5Ghz/3.8Ghz Turbo with 68GB/sec quad channel 2133 ram (up from socket 1366's 32GB/sec tri-chan 1600), and it's based on Haswell, so core for core it's roughly what you'd get from those 4xxx units, only with a lot more PCIe lanes and memory bandwidth. In fact, it dovetails nicely in comparison with the i7-4770, at 3.4/3.9Ghz, only with two extra cores. My Ryzen 2700X clock for clock with my old 4790k (trusty Devil's Canyon!) seems neck and neck, but the Ryzen having double the core goodness.

If we take that down the line, then with Ryzen 1xxx, he's probably going to be basically equal to a 1700/1700X, due to the clock speeds of those things. Same cores/threads, general IPC. 2600/2600X would be a slight boost with clocks and then 2700/2700X (and especially 3000 series) will just be bigger/better all around.

Would I do it for my main rig? Well, sure. Either way is a win in different respects I guess. It would honestly depend on what level of GPU it's paired with, or if the budget has extra room. My comparison up above was already getting pricier using a 1600 with 2400 ram and a budget mobo. That's always the attraction with these things beyond the novelty/fun of something hugely less common.

Say if someone only has ~$750 total to build a killer gaming PC. If your starting point minus GPU is $400, then you can fit a 2060, Vega 64 AIB, or used 1080 AIB into the mix. Starting @ 550ish on the other hand drops you to perhaps an after rebate 1660, a 580OC, or whatever steal you can find used perhaps on a 1070. Gets harder in a pinch. I pretty much guarantee that in blind tests, if you had to use a GPU at this performance level @ say 1440p, then you could run any number of processors including the 1650v3 and Ryzen 2600, etc, and not be able to tell the difference, just due to GPU bottleneck.

And then of course, will the person upgrade again? The Ryzen, even with a moderate B450 mobo choice, will let you get an upgrade to the 3000 series. At that point, should it also be paired with a GPU beyond the 1080/V64/2060 level, the performance gap will open right up and leave the 1650v3 behind. Right now that prospect is stupid levels of expensive thanks to Nvidia, but who knows, in 2-3 years time it might be common/affordable. Things have slowed down a lot on that front, but unless the world actually ends we will definitely see at least some kind of improvement in that area. Maybe an RTX 2260 or 2250ti will be $199-$249, but meet/beat 1080ti/2080, etc.

All that said, it's really fun to think about an ENTIRE system with 16GB, Hex Core, yadda, that's actually really capable, for less than the price of a 9900k/3900 CPU lol. Hell, some people buy those boards that are $400+ :)
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,565
1,047
126
Don't you think a Quadro k4200 is enough GPU for a $400 system?
Depends. For someone who didn't game, sure. Or for Minecraft/Roblox/some light MMO type stuff, card games, etc.

Otherwise no, this system is basically an i7-4770 (haswell cores), but with 6C/12T instead of 4C/8T, and with more that double the memory bandwidth over a 4770.

The 4770 pairs nicely with all the way to GTX 1080 and Vega 64 before becoming much of a bottleneck unless you crank details down a solid notch with a 144/165hz display.

So, silly as it sounds, a $500 2070 would be right at home with this $400 PC lol. It would game like an absolute boss with that combo.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
21,128
9,258
136
Wow, yeah at 2.5, I think I wouldn't run it in a mixed role either (eg; gaming and desktop general use), though loads of slower threads are ok for of course DC and certain encoding roles, or a bunch of VMs if it suits.

The 1650v3 is a 3.5Ghz/3.8Ghz Turbo with 68GB/sec quad channel 2133 ram (up from socket 1366's 32GB/sec tri-chan 1600), and it's based on Haswell, so core for core it's roughly what you'd get from those 4xxx units, only with a lot more PCIe lanes and memory bandwidth. In fact, it dovetails nicely in comparison with the i7-4770, at 3.4/3.9Ghz, only with two extra cores. My Ryzen 2700X clock for clock with my old 4790k (trusty Devil's Canyon!) seems neck and neck, but the Ryzen having double the core goodness.

If we take that down the line, then with Ryzen 1xxx, he's probably going to be basically equal to a 1700/1700X, due to the clock speeds of those things. Same cores/threads, general IPC. 2600/2600X would be a slight boost with clocks and then 2700/2700X (and especially 3000 series) will just be bigger/better all around.

Would I do it for my main rig? Well, sure. Either way is a win in different respects I guess. It would honestly depend on what level of GPU it's paired with, or if the budget has extra room. My comparison up above was already getting pricier using a 1600 with 2400 ram and a budget mobo. That's always the attraction with these things beyond the novelty/fun of something hugely less common.

Say if someone only has ~$750 total to build a killer gaming PC. If your starting point minus GPU is $400, then you can fit a 2060, Vega 64 AIB, or used 1080 AIB into the mix. Starting @ 550ish on the other hand drops you to perhaps an after rebate 1660, a 580OC, or whatever steal you can find used perhaps on a 1070. Gets harder in a pinch. I pretty much guarantee that in blind tests, if you had to use a GPU at this performance level @ say 1440p, then you could run any number of processors including the 1650v3 and Ryzen 2600, etc, and not be able to tell the difference, just due to GPU bottleneck.

And then of course, will the person upgrade again? The Ryzen, even with a moderate B450 mobo choice, will let you get an upgrade to the 3000 series. At that point, should it also be paired with a GPU beyond the 1080/V64/2060 level, the performance gap will open right up and leave the 1650v3 behind. Right now that prospect is stupid levels of expensive thanks to Nvidia, but who knows, in 2-3 years time it might be common/affordable. Things have slowed down a lot on that front, but unless the world actually ends we will definitely see at least some kind of improvement in that area. Maybe an RTX 2260 or 2250ti will be $199-$249, but meet/beat 1080ti/2080, etc.

All that said, it's really fun to think about an ENTIRE system with 16GB, Hex Core, yadda, that's actually really capable, for less than the price of a 9900k/3900 CPU lol. Hell, some people buy those boards that are $400+ :)
I also have 4 2683v3's that also run at 2.5 ghx, 14 cores, 28 threads, and the 8 core 2700x will at times beat it. Not sure how much of the time, if you want I could run a benchmark, I only looks at WCG times.

I don't have any 2700x's running right now, but the 16 core 1950x is doing 3.5 hours on the same unit that the 2683v3 is doing 5.5 hours.. And you can't even count cores, because the BOINC assigns one thread to one task. So they are killing the Xeons.

Mapping cancer markers is the subproject (to be fair) that these stats came from.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Arkaign

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,565
1,047
126
I also have 4 2683v3's that also run at 2.5 ghx, 14 cores, 28 threads, and the 8 core 2700x will at times beat it. Not sure how much of the time, if you want I could run a benchmark, I only looks at WCG times.
Oh for absolute sure, the 2700x should be ~6% or so faster per core per clock vs Haswell. I run my 2700x @ 4.4 with the DH15, it would take an 8-Core Haswell @ 4.5ish to equal it. At 2.5Ghz, your 2683s are running about 60% of the stock 2700X clocks, but with more of the slower cores. I can't imagine many situations where even with 14 cores it would be able to catch up with the Ryzen just due to the huge clock deficit.

With the 1650v3, it's sitting at 3.5/3.8, so ballpark of Ryzen 1600-1700 levels for gaming. Probably a shade better than 1600 (3.2/3.6/6C/12T) and a mixed bag loss against 1700 (3.0/3.7/8C/16T).

Downside of 2011v3 platform is that for a gamer, the 1650 is probably about the best cores vs clocks balance option. You can get a lot more cores, up to the 18/36 model, but at the cost of per core performance, and that won't help games.

Considering how damn expensive all these Xeons were when new, it's pretty amazing how Ryzen even in 1st gen is a badass, and 2000/3000 series are monstrous value :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: rUmX

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
21,128
9,258
136
Oh for absolute sure, the 2700x should be ~6% or so faster per core per clock vs Haswell. I run my 2700x @ 4.4 with the DH15, it would take an 8-Core Haswell @ 4.5ish to equal it. At 2.5Ghz, your 2683s are running about 60% of the stock 2700X clocks, but with more of the slower cores. I can't imagine many situations where even with 14 cores it would be able to catch up with the Ryzen just due to the huge clock deficit.

With the 1650v3, it's sitting at 3.5/3.8, so ballpark of Ryzen 1600-1700 levels for gaming. Probably a shade better than 1600 (3.2/3.6/6C/12T) and a mixed bag loss against 1700 (3.0/3.7/8C/16T).

Downside of 2011v3 platform is that for a gamer, the 1650 is probably about the best cores vs clocks balance option. You can get a lot more cores, up to the 18/36 model, but at the cost of per core performance, and that won't help games.

Considering how damn expensive all these Xeons were when new, it's pretty amazing how Ryzen even in 1st gen is a badass, and 2000/3000 series are monstrous value :)
You didn;t see my edit: I should have created a new post. 1st gen threadrippers are ripping these 2683v3, 3.5 hours compared to 5.5 hours per thread ? The threadrippers are running stuck, 3.4 ghz, and the Xeons are stock@2.5 turbo mode. Even accountg for the higher speed, I think they are killing the Xeons. And my 2990wx@3.2 ghz is doing 4 hours.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
21,128
9,258
136
And to stay on topic, those 2699v3's are $500 and 2.3 ghz base clock (not sure the turbo) But a $500 1950x could beat them easily, and you could update the platform to 2950,2970,2990, or the 3000 series when they come out,.

So I say its a matter of money. If that $400 system will meet your needs today and in the future with no upgrades, its a great bargain. Flashing the bios to 2699v3 is not even guaranteed to work, and its $500 or more than doubling your investment. (ebay lowest buy-it now price, approx)

For anything else, Ryzen or threadripper is the clear choice.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,565
1,047
126
Yeah for gaming, the 1650v3 is probably the best CPU for the socket, sadly all the higher core models are down on clocks, and 3.5/3.8 is about as low as I'd recommend, same with Ryzen 1600/1700, anything under that and it'd be bottlenecking even mid-range GPUs and impacting minimums too much. Upgrading to a 2699 would boost encoding and distributed computing type tasks, but would kill it for gaming/desktop use.

For high core count, can't beat Threadripper imho, loads of quality cores without such a big clock speed penalty.

For the OP and a mixed gaming/general desktop, the 1650v3 should be a beast box for $400. Only real question is :

If paired with RTX 2080/1080ti or better : don't do it, it will be bottlenecking.

If paired with RTX 2070/1080 or less : sure, it will be a superb bargain.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
21,128
9,258
136
Yup, I just give facts, and a little opinion. He can do whatever he wants.
 

Chicken76

Senior member
Jun 10, 2013
237
25
91
I can see this working as a decent workstation if you're doing CAD. You won't be able to find anything cheaper than that, that will come with a Quadro.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,878
5,841
136
@GeezerMan

Only thing to think about is your power bill. Newer, more-expensive hardware could achieve the same level (or greater) of performance while using less power. That's why corporations sell machines like these at such a discount.

If you aren't running it 24/7 and want it for some hobby projects or light professional work, I see nothing wrong. The price is right. For gaming, I would pass on it, unless you're doing some low-res stuff and/or playing older games.
 

ehume

Golden Member
Nov 6, 2009
1,511
72
91
@GeezerMan

Only thing to think about is your power bill. Newer, more-expensive hardware could achieve the same level (or greater) of performance while using less power. That's why corporations sell machines like these at such a discount.

If you aren't running it 24/7 and want it for some hobby projects or light professional work, I see nothing wrong. The price is right. For gaming, I would pass on it, unless you're doing some low-res stuff and/or playing older games.
Older. I like that. I am operating on an i7 v4770k -- which is contemporaneous with the Xeon OP is contemplating. After all, it's only six generations behind the current ix 9xxx Intel offerings. Six years doesn't seem so long.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,565
1,047
126
Older. I like that. I am operating on an i7 v4770k -- which is contemporaneous with the Xeon OP is contemplating. After all, it's only six generations behind the current ix 9xxx Intel offerings. Six years doesn't seem so long.
It really doesn't, ha. Techspot has a great head to head with 4770k vs 8700k, and they found that in the most low details CPU bound gaming a gap of less than 20%, all the way down to zero % with ultra settings and a GTX 1070. And this was just on stock clocks, OC vs OC the gap is even smaller.

From 1994 to 2000, or 2000 to 2006, or even 2006 to 2012, CPU performance moved monumental amounts. But these last 6 years have seen really sluggish with CPU increases, most especially clock for clock, core for core.

In my experience, a Haswell quad/hex will game just as well as a 9900k outside of cutting edge GPUs.
 

aigomorla

Cases and Cooling Mod PC Gaming Mod Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 28, 2005
18,514
1,148
126
If you need the ECC REG Ram then, there is nothing else you can really go on.
Ryzen, and TR2 might support ECC but if i recall its not certified, and it definitely does not run Registered Dimms.

That system you listed will also do horribly in gaming with a quadro.
Its not a gaming machine, its a server and probably do a good to decient job encoding.
Your basically looking at a carriage pulling horse, and not a thoroughbred race one which gaming requires.

How i would use that machine in your shoes, is load it up with queues in handbrake, and then forget about it until the next day while you game on another machine.

Since again it probably has ECC REG ram, you can be sure it wont botch an encode unless you get some kind of power failure.
Not saying AMD's will botch an Encode, but your protected more so from a machine with ECC REG ram.
 
Last edited:

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,565
1,047
126
Eh, it's a Haswell Hex Core with 3.5/3.8Ghz clocks. It's more than fine for gaming. I gave my son a 1650v2, the Ivy variant of this, and it's excellent for the money, paired with a 970, and even with my old 1080 Strix it was running AC Odyssey, Metro Exodus, etc with no issues. This v3 model would be slightly better still. I mean CPU wise, this is analagous to a Ryzen 1600, 6C/12T, same clock speed and IPC + or - single digit percentages. Not a world beater, but about as strong as a $400 complete box with 16GB, SSD, big PSU, etc can get.

The Quadro would be awful of course for gaming, but if the GPU is updated to even something like a $100 used RX570/580 it would be an excellent 1080p rig (GPU limited all the way).

It's probably not a server, if it's one of the typical boxes that has a full x16 Quadro + 1650v3. These are usually HP Z440, Dell 5810, etc, which are workstations. Nothing really different than a regular PC, just beefier Mobo, more ram slots, quad channel support, etc. The Quadro gives it away a bit in that regard.

I mean if you haven't used one of these before, that's fine. I can make a video of my son's S30+970 box, it is a killer 1080p rig (totally GPU maxed, CPU not even breathing hard with BFV/Apex/etc).
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigboxes

Shmee

Memory and Storage, Graphics Cards
Super Moderator
Sep 13, 2008
4,865
752
126
All that for $400 is a good deal. Should game well with a GPU upgrade. AFAIK the 1650v3's are unlocked, but the motherboards in those probably won't support OC.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,565
1,047
126
which one has a better build quality? Z440 or 5810?
In my experience, Dell and Lenovo do a bit better with their Xeon boxes vs HP. All are a class above your typical retail PCs but in support and practically, that's something to consider. If it is a Z440, make sure it has the 700w PSU instead of the 525w. Nothing wrong with the 525, but the 700 will power a 1080/etc, while the 525 lacks the connection to do so properly without janky adapters which I absolutely do not recommend.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY