Xeon X5660 X58 Full Review & Comparison to X79 High-End CPUs-and Xeon L5639 benchmark

Status
Not open for further replies.

K_Maru

Member
Oct 28, 2013
40
0
0
Since my last topic was locked when I logged in, I have to re-post this topic with no infractions of the policy. I'm fairly new here and this is my first [now second] created thread. Now facing a potential ban, I suppose I need to make sure I do everything right [?]. Goodness. I have posting in other topics though, but never created a thread. I'm going to copy and paste my updated review that is WIP and remove things the mods won't like or at least I hope the mod wont take it that serious this time. Also as a disclaimer this isn't my site.

I have updates and corrections to my previous topic that I can no longer update.

Here:
No linking to the thread I locked.
Markfw900
When will you stop spamming ?


Updates like Gaming Benchmarks and Real-Time Gaming Benchmarks. This review isn't complete since I'm still gathering gaming benchmarks. However, I have added Crysis 3@1080p maxed and BF3@ 1600p, 1080p and 720p maxed. I no longer have the bottlenecking and micro stutter issues I had with my i7-960@4.1Ghz as you'll read below.
---

This will be a text review since I can't post my benchmarks images. They are from another site where I posted them originally and I'm limited to the amount of images I can post in a thread here.

X5660 [and L5639] Review

This will be a text review since I can't post my benchmarks images. They are from another site where I posted them originally and I'm limited to the amount of images I can post in a thread here.

X5660 [and L5639] Review

It was suggested to me that Intel’s best platform to date could be the X58-LGA1366. From the looks of it, that suggestion may have been correct. Moving into its sixth year in the market; the legacy X58\Tylersburg is still alive and kicking. There appears to be plenty of life in the platform now that high-end server microprocessors are more affordable. This review is mainly for those who are on the fence and thinking about upgrading to X79 or possibly the X99. I also understand that Haswell-E is right around the corner, but some users might not want to upgrade unless they absolutely have to. Some users can’t always buy the latest and greatest. Personally I can, but only if I feel as if I’m getting a lot more than what I already have.

To most X58 users Intel’s X79 felt like a “side-grade” instead of an upgrade. I’m not saying X79 doesn’t offer a lot, but is it worth the price at this point? The architectures are obviously different. However, the X58 now has upgrades that cost less than $150-$200 that can easily even up the playing field a bit. Hex-cores are available and more affordable now. Unlike Intel latest Xeons [Sandy & Ivy Xeons], which have locked straps, LGA1366 has the ability to overclock Xeons by increasing the BLCK and\or CPU ratio. I’m sure many users are hoping to add as many years to the awesome X58 platform as possible. Many will tell others to upgrade, but not so fast. I’ve taken the time to compare my Xeon X5660 and L5639 to Intel’s latest and greatest high end CPUs.

While I am speaking about the Xeon L5639 be sure to check my review here:


You not only can't link to another website, you can't tell people how to google for it, just as bad.
And the banhammer comments are an insult, but I have others looking into that.
Markfw900


I cover the CPU benchmarks and gaming benchmarks. I also added something I like to call “Real-Time Benchmarks” which is for gaming. Instead of running a benchmark tool, I literally capture the frame times and frame rates from actual gameplay. I try to play at least 25 minutes or longer to give a good review, but sometimes I can't always hit the 25 minute mark [depends on the level and\or game modes]. I also try to select the most demanding levels. For an example, my i7-960@4.2Ghz struggled to play Crysis 3 maxed @ 1080p. There was constant micro stutter and bottlenecking. After I installed my L5639 and later the X5660, Crysis 3 is much more playable and runs at a smoother rate. I show the actual data from my play through. The differences are night and day

Moving on, I have made a brief chart comparing the X58 architecture to the X79 architecture.

Now you can see why a lot of X58 users felt like this platform was a side grade. PCI-E 2.0 still has plenty of bandwidth for high end cards. There have been a lot of reviews that proves that there is a minor difference between PCI-E 2.0 and 3.0. X58 gamers can still enjoy high end gaming as usual. So hopefully my review will help X58 users that might want to make a minor upgrade to their existing system, rather than upgrading to a new build.

My PC Specs:
Motherboard: ASUS Sabertooth X58
CPU: Xeon X5660 @ 4.8Ghz
CPU Cooler: Antec Kuhler 620 Push/Pull
GPU: GTX 670 2GB 2-Way SLI
RAM: 12GB DDR3-1600Mhz [6x2GB]
HDD: x3 Seagate Barracuda 7,200rpm High Performance Drives [none RAID setup]
PSU: EVGA SuperNOVA G2 1300W 80+ GOLD
Monitor: Dual – Res- 1080p, 1400p, 1600p
OS: Windows 7 64-bit


I had a decent SSD at one point that contained my OS. It died randomly one day and I’m sticking with traditional HDDs from now on or at least for a few more years. HDDs move plenty of bandwidth IMO.

HDD Benchmark:
[I'm sorry. I Cannot post pictures due to URL to another website due to a banhammer threat]

4.8Ghz
[I'm sorry. I Cannot post pictures due to URL to another website due to a banhammer threat]

----

5Ghz
[I'm sorry. I Cannot post pictures due to URL to another website due to a banhammer threat]


5Ghz takes a bit more vCore [1.5v], but I don't feel safe running 5Ghz a lot so I'll stick with 4.8Ghz

----------

I will admit that I was pretty excited when I first received my X5660. I only spent about $200 for it. I couldn’t find a lot of info on it. Some of the info I found was true and the other info was wrong. Finding info on this chip was much easier than my Xeon L5639. The X5660 is rated at 6.4 GT/s and I’ve personally pushed it all the way to 8 GT/s. It is a 32nm processor with 12MB a 95Watt Max TDP. There’s a lot of more info you can search and find. Now when I first installed the chip I was amazed at the low temps it maintained. The cores usually stayed below 23C in my room that was approx. 20C. Default voltages range from 0.88vCore to 1.18vCore [3.2Ghz-x24]. During 100% Loads the cores never went above 32c. Obviously I couldn’t wait to overclock this CPU and I’ll speak more on the overclocking below.

X5660 Stock clocks and minor BLCK overclock
I ran a few quick tests in Cinebench R11.5 after I first installed this chip. I scored a 7.71pts in Cinebench R11.5 @ stock clocks– 3.2Ghz [x24]. One of the impressive things about this chip is that the voltage was extremely low. The idle voltage was 0.88v and the highest voltage was 1.18v @ stock clocks. What was even more impressive was that HWiNFO 64 read 1.6Ghz as the idle speed. This could be an error, but HWiNFO is usually on the mark. So I performed a minor increase to the BLCK. I pushed it from 133 to 166. I only increased the BLCK and left everything else set to auto. I was able to hit 3980.50Mhz [x24] very easily or in other words 4Ghz. This only required 1.22vCore! This is only 0.04v above the highest default settings [1.18v] and I noticed the idle clock speed increased to 2Ghz [1990Mhz] in HWINFO 64.

Obviously the 4Ghz will down clock to 3.8Ghz after using more than two cores. @ 4Ghz [3.8Ghz -x23] I scored 9.64pts in Cinebench R11.5. Not too bad at all. At this speed the Xeon L5639 with a highly clocked BLCK @ 228 [and other settings] running @ 4.1Ghz is only 10% faster than the X5660 @ 4Ghz\3.8Ghz-BLCK 166. With a minor bump in BLCK and with ZERO other changes the X5660 was already looking better than my lovely L5639. If you were to compare my X5660 @ 4Ghz\3.8Ghz [x23] w/ BLCK 166-1600Mhz RAM to Intel’s i7-4960X @ stock clock, the difference in speed is only 14.8%. This is extremely minor if you are looking to upgrade from X58 to X79 and may not be worth it at this point if you don’t plan to heavily overclock. This CPU definitely has plenty of headroom. Continue reading more for the Cinebench R11.5 overclocked settings below.

L5639 RECAP+Xeon Info

Taking another look at the Xeon L5639 vs Several Intel Stock clocks

As the title suggest, I'm comparing an overclocked L5639@4.1Ghz to stock High-End Intel CPUs. The i7-4770K isn't "that" high-end, but I have seen people upgrading to Haswell. This should give LGA 1366-X58 users an ideal comparison to stock higher end CPUs. I personally like to compare my overclock CPU to Intel’s latest stock clocks. It really helps me decide if an upgrade is really worth it or not. Now does this mean the Xeon L5639 or Xeon X5660 would perform better clock for clock [?] of course not, due to the fact that the CPUs use different architectures to perform. Obviously people who still use their X58 as their main gaming and workstation platform will be looking to overclock the Xeon L5639 and the Xeon X5660. The highest constant overclock I could achieve with a reasonable vCore while using the Xeon L5639 was 4.1GHz. I've gathered several stock clock benchmarks from reputable review sites. So let's see how a overclocked Xeon L5639 compares to several CPUs.

[I'm sorry. I Cannot post pictures due to URL to another website due to a banhammer threat]

Obviously the latest and greatest Intel CPUs will overclock better. They also cost over $800-$1000.00. While the L5639 [$70-$150] and X5660 [$150-$200] are affordable now. So the cheaper L5639 does pack a nice punch for those who are still running the X58. If you can manage to reach a high BLCK with the L5639 you’ll see that the i7-4960X [stock] is only 4.2% faster than the overclocked L6539. The Xeon X5660 is unlocked which makes overclocking much easier. The Xeon L5639 is a locked CPU with a x20 multiplier. The multiplier fluctuates [L5639 [x20]+X5660 [x24]-Xeons] with the amount of active cores.

For instance, using the Xeon L5639 as a example: Cores 1 & 2 will operate at x20. Once the 3rd OR 4th core becomes active the multiplier will drop to x19. When Core 5 OR 6 is active it will drop the multiplier to [x18] and so on. x16 is the lowest multiplier. Some motherboards can lock the CPU multiplier\CPU Ratio to x16 or x18. The following x19 and x20 can only be enabled if you have the C-state functions. So the x18 CPU Ratio should be your main focus. The only way to overclock this CPU is to increase the Ratio and the BCLK and various settings in the BIOS. With all of this being said, the 1366-Xeon and i7 "X & K" counterparts can and will be unlocked; allowing a much easier overclock. Therefore the L5639 takes some patients to overclock past BLCK 200-215 due to the low multiplier. From what I’ve read from several users; hitting 4Ghz is pretty easy for the average overclocker. I can easily tell you that the L5639 is pretty easy to overclock if you plan to use the C-States. Most X58 motherboards can move the BLCK upwards towards 200Mhz with minor issues. Which would put most around 3.8Ghz to 4.0Ghz with the x20 multiplier.

Overclocking the X5660 and Cinebench R11.5 results:

Before jumping right into the review about this benchmark section, I would like to point out my performance increase. Coming from the i7-960 I have seen a huge performance increase. The Bloomfield’s are pretty damn hard to OC past 4.2Ghz, mostly due to several limitations and voltage issues. It’s hard to get the i7-960 past 4.1-4.2Ghz without some serious cooling and high vCore [or the golden chip]. My performance gains in CinebenchR11.5 were a breathtaking 76.1% if you compare my old i7-960@4.1Ghz to the X5660@4.8Ghz. Now that’s what I call a upgrade.

[I'm sorry. I Cannot post pictures due to URL to another website due to a banhammer threat]

Cinebench R11.5 Results:
i7-4960X @ 4.4Ghz = 13.50
i7-3970X @ 4.6Ghz = 13.31
X5600 @ 4.8Ghz = 12.38 <--------
i7-980X @ 4.2Ghz = 11.20
Xeon L5639 @ 4.1Ghz = 10.62 <--------
i7-4770K @ 4.6Ghz = 10.40
i7-3770K @ 4.8Ghz = 10.21

X5660
The i7-4960X has a difference of 9% when compared to the X5660@4.8Ghz. Remember that I&#8217;m only running DDR3-1600Mhz RAM. The Xeon X5660 is pretty impressive. At 1.36v I was able to hit 4.6Ghz. This voltage is right outside of Intel&#8217;s recommended max voltage of 1.35v. I was able to get a score of 11.89pts @4.6Ghz in Cinebench R11.5. This would put the i7-4960X @ 4.4Ghz only 13% higher than the X5660@4.6Ghz. When I pushed the BLCK to 209 and increased the vCore to a stable 1.43v, I was able to hit 4.8Ghz rather easily. This is outside of Intel&#8217;s max [only 0.08v], but safe enough for me to test and play games without worrying for hours. You&#8217;ll definitely want aftermarket cooling if you plan to overclock this CPU heavily.

So once again the i7-4960X@4.4Ghz vs the X5660 @ 4.8Ghz difference is only 9%. I&#8217;m only running DDR-1600Mhz RAM. So I&#8217;m sure if you run faster RAM with tighter timings you can make the 9% even smaller, possibly 7% or less. I can say I&#8217;m pretty impressed. Between the L5639@4.1Ghz vs the X5660@4.8Ghz, the different is roughly 17%; easily making the X5660 the better choice for X58 users who don&#8217;t want to spend a lot on legacy technology.

L5639
Now let's even up the playing field a bit. I have included some overclocked examples to give you a better representation of the &#8220;Locked&#8221; L5639. The i7-4960X @ 4.4GHz is 27.1% faster than the L5639 @ 4.1Ghz while running DDR3-1333Mhz. 27.1% might not be enough to make a ton of X58 users to run out and spend approx. $1,059.00 for the latest and greatest CPU plus more for the latest platform MB. Most L5639 users should be able reach 4Ghz rather easily with the x20 multiplier and low vCore. For those who manage to reach 4Ghz or 4.1Ghz with the x18 multiplier; you&#8217;ll definitely get great results while playing games. Those who can reach 180Mhz-200Mhz [BLCK] will be just as happy. This CPU definitely gets the job done. Just be sure to leave the C-States enabled.

Cinebench R15:

[I'm sorry. I Cannot post pictures due to URL to another website due to a banhammer threat]

i7-3970X @ 4.9Ghz = 1252 cb
Xeon X5660 @ 4.8Ghz = 1110 cb
Xeon L5639 @ 4.1Ghz = 965 cb

There are a lot of Cinebench R15 scores available. Cinebench loves faster RAM. I chose the i7-3970X that is ranked on HWBOT. The i7-3970X is 12.8% faster than my X5660. The i7-3970X is running DDR3-2423Mhz and once again I&#8217;m running 1600Mhz with my X5660. Cinebench loves fast RAM so those numbers can easily change for both processors. It&#8217;s hard finding units that match my RAM setting so I went with the processor speed.

The 3970X is roughly 30% faster than the L5639 running DDR3-1333Mhz. For only $70 [L5639] that&#8217;s pretty damn good for nearly 6 year old technology. The i7-3970X processor retailed for $1,039.99 and currently $700-$900. The numbers look good, but the performance increase is what really matters to me. 12.8% [X5660] increase isn&#8217;t going to make me run out and upgrade my PC. You&#8217;ll have to also add the price of the new MB and CPU. Not to forget to mention coolers and other things needed when changing platforms\MBs. obviously enthusiast will always have that upgrade itch. Maybe the X5660 can ease the pain for a little longer.

Cinebench R10:

[I'm sorry. I Cannot post pictures due to URL to another website due to a banhammer threat]

Multi-Core - Overclocked:
i7-4960X @ 4.4Ghz = 42967 [-14%]
i7-3970X @ 4.6Ghz = 41359 [-9.7%]
X5660 @ 4.8Ghz = 37685 [0.0%]
i7-4770K @ 4.6Ghz = 36644 [+3%]
i7-3770K @ 4.8Ghz = 32738 [+15.1%]
L5639 @ 4.1Ghz = 32627 [+15.5%]
i7-920 @ 4.4Ghz = 25143 [+50%]


Singe Core - Overclocked
i7-4770K @ 4.6Ghz = 9288 [-33.5%]
i7-3770K @ 4.8Ghz = 8467 [-21.7%]
i7-4960X @ 4.4Ghz = 8037 [-15.5%]
i7-3970X @ 4.6Ghz = 7699 [-10.7%]
X5660 @ 4.8Ghz = 6953 [0.0%]
L5639 @ 4.1Ghz = 5862 [+18.6%]


Cinebench R10 is pretty old, but still useful. Well the Open GL isn&#8217;t that useful for me, but the CPU benchmark scores are. In the Multi-core test the Xeon L5639 actually does pretty well. The i7-4960X is 31.7% faster than the Xeon L5639 @ 4.1GHz and 71% faster than the i7-920 @ 4.4Ghz. The i7-4770K [Quad-Core] clearly outperforms the other CPUs core for core in Cinebench R10 Single Core. The i7-4960X is only X5660 14% better in the Multi-Core benchmark. I7-920 and i7-960 users will definitely see a lot of performance gains if they choose to upgrade to the X5660 or the L5639.

WinRar v4.20:

[I'm sorry. I Cannot post pictures due to URL to another website due to a banhammer threat]

Moving on to the WinRar v4.20 benchmark, I&#8217;m comparing the X5660, L5639, and the i7-960. The results were amazing if you consider my i7-960 results I only ran my X5660 @ 4.6Ghz during this test. Here is the breakdown:

Xeon X5660 @ 4.6Ghz = 13,604
Xeon L5639 @ 4.1Ghz = 12,441
i7-960 @ 4.2Ghz = 8,519

Users running the i7-920 or i7-960 will see a nice upgrade when it comes to extracting files. The L5639 performed very well for a chip that sells for $75-$150, especially if you are looking to upgrade your Quad-core on the X58 platform. Upgrading from my i7-960 to the X5660 gave me a 60% performance increase in WinRar v4.20 benchmark for approx. $200. The upgrade was worth the purchase so far. WinRar isn&#8217;t the best benchmarking tool for multi-cores and relies heavily on tighter RAM timings. I can unpack 1.17GB with the X5660 in less than 10 secs. I&#8217;ve also ran 7-zip benchmark as well. Check below.

7-zip v9.20:

[I'm sorry. I Cannot post pictures due to URL to another website due to a banhammer threat]

i7-4960X@4.7Ghz: Decompression: 447593 - Compressing: 34451
Xeon X5660 @4.8Ghz: Decompression: 445683 - Compressing: 33496
Xeon L5639 @4.1Ghz: Decompression: 384499 - Compressing: 29712

7-zip shows some interesting results. The Decompressing performance difference is less that 1% between the i7-4960X@4.7Ghz and the X5660@4.8Ghz. The exact number is 0.4%. When it comes to the compressing benchmark, the difference is only 2.85%. I expected a wider gap, but that wasn&#8217;t the case here. The i7-4960X is 16.3% faster than the L5639.

AIDA64:

I&#8217;ve ran a few of AIDA64 CPU benchmark test. The CPU Queen was the first test I ran. The Performance % is solely for the X5660.

CPU Queen:
X5660 Score Performance % Increase[+] \ Decrease [-]

i7-4960X @ 4.7Ghz = 81760 [-7.8%]
I7-3960X @ 4.7Ghz = 81402 [-7.3%]
X5660 @ 4.8Ghz = 75826 [0.0%]
L5639 @ 4.1Ghz = 64727 [+17.1%]
i7-4770K @ 4.6Ghz = 59950 [+26.5%]
i7-3770K @ 4.6Ghz = 59385 [+27.7%]

As we can see the X5660 is only 7% and roughly 2% behind the i7-3960X and the 4960X respectfully. The 3960X is roughly 26% faster than the L5639. This isn&#8217;t that bad since I only paid $75 for my L5639. My X5660 is definitely staying in my system. It&#8217;s continuing to put up great numbers.

Here are a few of my other AIDA64 benchmarks. I have included the L5636 as well. Feel free to compare your scores if you are using AIDA64 [Note: comparing newer versions of AIDA64 won&#8217;t give accurate comparisons.]
X5660 Score Performance % Increase[+] \ Decrease [-]

CPU PhotoWorxx:
i7-4960X @ 4.7Ghz = 24876 MPixel/s [-45.1%]
X5660 @ 4.8Ghz = 17142 MPixel/s [0.0%]
L5639 @ 4.1Ghz = 15218 MPixel/s [+12.6%]

CPU ZLib:
i7-4960X @ 4.7Ghz = 598.8 [-23.6%]
X5660 @ 4.8Ghz = 484.3 [0.0%]

FPU VP8:
i7-4960X @ 4.7Ghz = 8392 [-23%]
X5660 @ 4.8Ghz = 6814 [0.0%]
L5639 @ 4.1Ghz = 5897 [+15.5%]

FPU SinJulia:
X5660 @ 4.8Ghz = 9955 [0.0%]
i7-4960X @ 4.7Ghz = 9483 [4.9%]
L5639 @ 4.1Ghz = 8506 [17%]

The X5660 holds its own in a lot of the test. The i7-4960X is king since its using newer technology. The X5660 actually beat the 4960X in one of the test by 4.9%. That&#8217;s pretty rare considering the architecture both processors are using. Overall I can&#8217;t complain. I&#8217;ll run more test when I get more time to run them. This should be enough in the meantime.

Performance Test 7

[I'm sorry. I Cannot post pictures due to URL to another website due to a banhammer threat]

I could not find enough results to compare with Performance Test 7. Therefore I simply compared the X5660 to the L5639. This could give those looking to upgrade a decent comparison. Check below for the latest Performance Test 8 results.

Performance Test 8

Let's take a look at Performance 8. In this benchmark I compared the X5660 and L5639 with several baselines from similar clock speeds. I tried to get the best results with systems that are similar to one another.

Xeon 5660
At the time of this posting Performance Test 8 is not working properly. I have tried to reinstall the program, but I cannot resolve the issue. Therefore I cannot compare my X5660 @ 4.8Ghz with other processors running near the same speed and using the same memory speed. However, you can visit Performance Test web-site to compare my score to other scores. The website states that the graphs are updated once per day when there are at least 2 samples available.

Visit the Performance 8 web-site: [I'm sorry. I Cannot post URL to another website due to a banhammer threat]

X5660 @ 4.8Ghz &#8211; DDR3-1600Mhz CPU Mark: 12937

If I can find some CPUs with similar setups I will compare them and update this section of the review.

L5639 @ 4.1Ghz
Intel latest platforms have advantages over X58. The architecture is definitely different and quicker. However, that doesn't mean that the L5639 can't compete. You just can't expect the L5639 to win in every category. In this case it would be up to the user to decide. Upgrading from a i7-920 @ 4.2Ghz to a L5639 would be worth it, but would it be worth a X79+i7 upgrade? Judging from Performance 8 CPU Mark I personally wouldn't upgrade just yet.....well unless you are running a i7-920 or i7-960.

L5639 CPU Mark: Score
Performance Increase [+] \ Decrease [-]

--- Intel Core i7-4960X @ 4.2Ghz = 14853 [-34.4%]
--- Intel Core i7-3970X @ 4.0GHz = 13117 [-18.7%]
--- Intel Core i7-3770K @ 4.4GHz = 11786 [-6.6%]
--- Intel Core i7-4770K @ 4.2GHz = 11405 [-3.2%]
--> Intel Xeon L5639 @ 4.1Ghz = 11050 <-[0.0%]
--- Intel Core i7-920 @ 4.2Ghz = 7962 [+38.8%]


----

Alright I'm getting my GPU\Gaming Benchmark scores together. I will be updating my post on the first page with all new info I post throughout this topic. I've taken the L5639 info from my L5639 topic and compared both processors.

The L5639 topic is here:

Due to the rules I cannot post links to my other review unless it's on anandtech.com. So I won't post links. Just google "Kana_Maru L5639" or "Kana_Maru X5660". I'm limited to the amount of pictures I can upload here so I cannot post all of my graphs.
----

Alright here are my Gaming Benchmarks. I will post more benchmarks as I complete them. I&#8217;m going to be comparing my X5660, L5639 and i7-960 benchmarks. If you would like to compare your scores please post them. I tried to remember some my i7-960 scores. 4Ghz-4.2Ghz is all most gamers will need anyways with Hex-cores. The X5660 will be a better choice if you stream games online in HD. It should be able to handle the load and specific settings in certain streaming programs for high end CPUs.

GTX 670 2-way SLI @ 1241Mhz [except 3DMark Cloud Gate and Vantage which was ran @ 1228Mhz]

3DMark 11:

[I'm sorry. I Cannot post pictures due to URL to another website due to a banhammer threat]

X5660@4.6Ghz = P16449
L5639@4.1Ghz = P15692
i7-960@4Ghz was around P12000-P13000

Looks like the GTX 670 2GB 2-Way SLI is pushing max with the Hex cores. The X5660 increased my Graphics [+174 points], Physics [+1,736 points] and Combined Score [+809 points]. If I could get both GPUs to run @1280Mhz I&#8217;m sure I could probably crack the 17000 mark. The benchmarks were smooth with Hex-CPUs. To the naked eye I couldn&#8217;t notice any difference. My GPUs are running on air so heat did become an issue.

3DMark Vantage:

[I'm sorry. I Cannot post pictures due to URL to another website due to a banhammer threat]

X5660@4.6Ghz = P47325
L5639@4.1Ghz = P45164

Here is another minor difference in score.

3DMark Ice Storm:

[I'm sorry. I Cannot post pictures due to URL to another website due to a banhammer threat]

X5660@4.6Ghz = P197876
L5639@4.1Ghz = P173914
i7-960 @ 4Ghz = P157635

Now we can see some bigger differences in the score and performance %. The X5660 scored 26% higher than the i7-960. The X5660 performed 14% better than the L5639. The X5660 performed pretty good with the GTX 670s @ 1241Mhz.

3DMark Fire Strike:

[I'm sorry. I Cannot post pictures due to URL to another website due to a banhammer threat]

X5660@4.6Ghz = 11205
L5639@4.1Ghz = 10900
i7-960@4Ghz = 9787

Using Hex cores definitely makes the benchmark much smoother. The X5660 offered a 14.4% increase over my i7-960@4Ghz and only 2.7% over the L5639.

Real Time Benchmarks

Crysis 3:

The real time benchmarks are games that I have played while capturing real time data. Instead of relying on a benchmark tool found in a lot of games nowadays, I play through the levels looking for micro stutter and or delays. The L5639 handled Maxed High End games like Crysis 3, Tomb Raider and Metro: LL etc. Let's see how the X5660 handle Crysis 3,

GTX 670 2-Way SLI @ 1228Mhz

Welcome to the Jungle - 1920x1080p

X5660@4.6Ghz
CPU Max Temps:58c
GPU 1: 83c
GPU 2: 71c

Those temps were pretty much steady throughout the benchmark and gameplay. Due to heat concerns I had to run the GPU cores @ 1228Mhz instead of 1241Mhz.

[I'm sorry. I Cannot post pictures due to URL to another website due to a banhammer threat]

FPS:
Avg: 53
Max: 136

Min: 18

As you can see not much has changed in this category. I actually gained 3 frames per second and the frame rate was well above 60fps throughout the level. I&#8217;m guessing it&#8217;s safe to say that 4Ghz-4.2Ghz will be fine for high end gaming with the Hex cores. With no more CPU bottlenecking I&#8217;ve finally hit the max on my graphic cards. I was only getting 25fps to 35fps with my i7-960@4.1Ghz. Two extra cores make a huge difference. The L5639 and X5660 is fine for high end gaming.


[I'm sorry. I Cannot post pictures due to URL to another website due to a banhammer threat]

Average Frame time: 19ms

My frame times were slightly better. The game played fine on both CPUs. The higher clocked X5660 gave it a edge over the L5639. However, I&#8217;m sure if both CPUs were clocked at the same speed the difference wouldn&#8217;t matter. just as they do not now. So i7-920 to i7-960 and pretty much all Bloomfield users will see a tremendous upgrade. Gaming wise there is no comparisons.

Battlefield 3

BF3 is one of the most gorgeous FPS I&#8217;ve played. There are a lot of great looking games. EA isn&#8217;t my favorite company, but they definitely invest in their studios. It was requested to be benchmarked. I also have to thank PontiacGTX for allowing me to benchmark this game on Origin. It took me 2 hours to download 20.3GBs of data. It was worth it. I ran the benchmarks in 1600p, 1080p and 720p. There are a lot of charts, but I&#8217;m not going to post the charts. It&#8217;s way too many charts.

[I'm sorry. I Cannot post pictures due to URL to another website due to a banhammer threat]

All benchmarks were tested with Max Settings. My GPUs were at stock settings.
GTX 670 2GB 2-Way SLI @ 1228Mhz.


While playing @ 1600p
X5660 @ 4.6Ghz
CPU: Max: 52c
GPU 1: Avg. 70c - Max: 76c
GPU 2: Avg. 65c - Max: 72c

Semper Fidelis [Campaign] @2560 x 1600p:

Gameplay Duration: 3 minutes 21 secs
Captured 14,690 frames
FPS Avg: 73fps
FPS Max: 110fps
FPS Min: 30fps
Frame time Avg: 13.7ms

The game plays great at 1600p. No micro stuttering at all. The input lag and everything was smooth. My highest frame time was 33.0ms, which is no problem at all to me. The Average was 13.7ms which is great. The game is still gorgeous and will be for a very long time. This was level short so make your judgment from the other benchmarks.

Operation Swordbreaker [Campaign] @ 2560 x 1600p:
Gameplay Duration: 26 minutes 25 secs
Captured 123,237 frames
FPS Avg: 78fps
FPS Max: 120fps
FPS Min: 34fps
Frame time Avg: 12.9ms

Caspian Border [Multiplayer &#8211; Conquest 32v32] @ 2560 x 1600p:
Gameplay Duration: 23 minutes 29 secs
Captured 95,475 frames
FPS Avg: 66fps
FPS Max: 106fps
FPS Min: 34fps
Frame time Avg: 15.2ms

Operation Metro [Multiplayer &#8211; Conquest 32v32] @ 2560 x 1600p:
Gameplay Duration: 13 minutes 1 secs
Captured 58,831 frames
FPS Avg: 75fps
FPS Max: 112fps
FPS Min: 41fps
Frame time Avg: 13.3ms

Noshahr Canals [Multiplayer TDM 32v32] @ 1920x1080p:
Gameplay Duration: 21 minutes 49 secs
Captured 185,190 frames
FPS Avg: 141fps
FPS Max: 201fps
FPS Min: 76fps
Frame time Avg: 7.07ms

Operation Metro [Multiplayer &#8211; Conquest 32v32] @ 1280x720:
Gameplay Duration: 25 minutes 50 secs
Captured 265,517 frames
FPS Avg: 171fps
FPS Max: 224fps
FPS Min: 90fps
Frame time Avg: 5.86ms


Now as you can see the GTX 670 2GB SLI manhandles the Frostbite 2 engine. I&#8217;ll probably get around to testing the Frostbite 3 engine if I ever get man hands on the game. I will be posting more Real Time Benchmarks soon.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

T_Yamamoto

Lifer
Jul 6, 2011
14,981
769
126
Please read this and make sure you don't do this
No editing mod edits or warning. No referencing you stuff as your site.
Markfw900

I am locking this thread due to numerous infractions of policy, including editing mod edits.
 

DanStp

Senior member
Oct 9, 1999
800
0
76
Congratulations for getting one of the most useful threads back up on this board.

In all the years I have been here, I never knew that such useful info could be locked away due to what seems like minor
rules violations.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
18,345
5,672
136
Congratulations for getting one of the most useful threads back up on this board.

In all the years I have been here, I never knew that such useful info could be locked away due to what seems like minor
rules violations.
Advertizing your website by linking to it on another is no minor rules violation. What if you spend millions bringing a site up, that depends on hits to fund it, and then you get other people directing traffic away from it ?

So you would stand in Walmart with a Fred Meyer poster, and not expect to get booted out ?

And by the way, I don't get a dime for being a mod here, it volunteer.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
18,345
5,672
136
BTW, if your pictures have NO URL's, links, names, advertizing, etc, on them, below is a site that is allowed to host pics. Why you ask ? they have no vested interest in anything except pictures, and you may link to that site. Signup is free. Note I have a link to that in my sig.

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/index.php
 
Last edited:

K_Maru

Member
Oct 28, 2013
40
0
0
Please read this and make sure you don't do this
Thanks. I tried not to and STILL got modded.

Congratulations for getting one of the most useful threads back up on this board.

In all the years I have been here, I never knew that such useful info could be locked away due to what seems like minor
rules violations.
I didn't either. I'm fairly new here, but I never thought I would be modded for trying to help others. I lurked for awhile and decided to make a account because I thought it was cool here. The community is decent, but the modding is a bit over the top when it comes to funds and URLs. I'm not trying to promote myself OR any other website. I'm just attempting to help X58 users on the fence about upgrade. Or at least assist them and let them know that there are affordable upgrades available to them. Plus I love the X58 platform.

Advertizing your website by linking to it on another is no minor rules violation. What if you spend millions bringing a site up, that depends on hits to fund it, and then you get other people directing traffic away from it ?

So you would stand in Walmart with a Fred Meyer poster, and not expect to get booted out ?

And by the way, I don't get a dime for being a mod here, it volunteer.
I'm not advertising my website by the way. I don't even own the site. I'm just a user on several sites. I only post on this site and the "other site" in specific topic relating to my CPU and benchmakrs....or gaming related conversations. I hope someone or people didn't spend MILLIONS to bring up a web-site+forums for computers and reviews. Shouldn't take that much.

When I first got modded I figured that I was modded due to the fact that anandtech.com wants all of the possible funds it can get from people clicking on advertisements etc. I see I Was right. In other words, not potentially sending traffic to other web-site, whether those web-sites are better or worse.

That's not my agenda and never will be. The other site has no limits on images that's all. Also I'm not trolling at all. I was just trying to let them know that I have a complete review with pictures\images available. Proof of my benchmarks etc. Anyone can "say" they scored this and that on any site. The other site allows to me to prove everything which will allow others to compare their scores to proven benchmarks,
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
18,345
5,672
136
Locking this one
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
18,345
5,672
136
Thanks. I tried not to and STILL got modded.



I didn't either. I'm fairly new here, but I never thought I would be modded for trying to help others. I lurked for awhile and decided to make a account because I thought it was cool here. The community is decent, but the modding is a bit over the top when it comes to funds and URLs. I'm not trying to promote myself OR any other website. I'm just attempting to help X58 users on the fence about upgrade. Or at least assist them and let them know that there are affordable upgrades available to them. Plus I love the X58 platform.



I'm not advertising my website by the way. I don't even own the site. I'm just a user on several sites. I only post on this site and the "other site" in specific topic relating to my CPU and benchmakrs....or gaming related conversations. I hope someone or people didn't spend MILLIONS to bring up a web-site+forums for computers and reviews. Shouldn't take that much.

When I first got modded I figured that I was modded due to the fact that anandtech.com wants all of the possible funds it can get from people clicking on advertisements etc. I see I Was right. In other words, not potentially sending traffic to other web-site, whether those web-sites are better or worse.

That's not my agenda and never will be. The other site has no limits on images that's all. Also I'm not trolling at all. I was just trying to let them know that I have a complete review with pictures\images available. Proof of my benchmarks etc. Anyone can "say" they scored this and that on any site. The other site allows to me to prove everything which will allow others to compare their scores to proven benchmarks,
You have a website, and you are trying to use this one to advertize your review. It won't work no matter how much you try to play innocent. Don't try a thread like this again, or you will be permabanned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY