Processors in a new computer.

[Cyanotical]

I'm pretty sure Windows' load balancing as well as other game's poor core scaling (WoW for example still scales over 2 threads)over 20 cores and 40 threads will overtake any kind of overclocking you can do on a normal single x79 chip. Note the "I'm pretty sure" part.

maybe, if every windows process was covered and wow got its own dedicated cores, you might be able to catch up to an i7-x, but i just don't see it happening, however, if intel releases a K series Xeon, that will change of course, but the email i got back from intel when i inquired about the E5s was that overclocking fans are taken care of with the consumer level K and X series CPUs, and that Xeons are not meant for consumers, when it comes the Xeon market, SR-2 and SR-X owners barely make up enough of the market share for intel to even acknowledge their existence

[Fuzzeekee]

(1.)sorry, but most in the computer community do not consider tomshardware as a valid source of information

if you want to know why a Xeon is not good for gaming, it has a (2.)limited multiplier, (3.)costs more, has (4.)limited consumer support, and with the exception of VT-d and a few other technologies is nearly identical to consumer CPUs, the few advantages a Xeon has over a Core I do not give it an advantage in gaming, what you are paying for basically is an enterprise certified CPU

(5.) for example, the best Xeon for a dedicated gaming machine is the E3-1280, at a cost of $620 its more expensive and has worse performance then a 3930k, more realistically, the E3-1245 which retails for $280, vs the i5-2500k which can be clocked higher, and costs $100 less
the i5 also has more motherboard support



(6.) the SR-X is what it is called, but unfortunately the new E5 Xeons are only overclockable by the BCLK meaning they have the same limitation as BCLK clocking on an i5

so while you can get 20MB of L3 cache on a new 8 core, you cant clock into the 4.5-5Ghz range for daily gaming use, nor is the base clock as high, (3.1 max iirc), so for the all out (7.)best performance for gaming is still a 3960x, with the 2500k still being the best price choice giving 95% of the performance of the 3960x, the SR-X with dual E5-2687s will beat out in multithreaded processing, but not gaming

Answers clarified for the original poster of this thread below:

1.)You yourself, do not consider it... but random forum poster on the internet vs credible website = no competition to the website.
2.) It's obviously exactly what I said it was
3.) Incorrect:
XEON E3-1230: http://www.ncix.com/products/?sku=68...ver%20Products
Core I7 2600k: http://www.ncix.com/products/?sku=57...ufacture=Intel

If you want to take a look. I googled this for you just off the top of my head so you have something to cut your teeth on: http://www.chiphell.com/en/cpu/intel...3-1230-review/

4.)Consumer support is fine, you're not overclocking, and it's already extremely reliable. If it's dead then you can RMA it like any other part.
5.)No one would buy the 1280, everyone buys the 1230. The reason why the 1280 is so expensive is because people buy it less often. But you are not a parts supplier/re-seller or even someone who knows what to buy in the first place for a xeon.
6.)This is just another one of your overclocking complaints which doesn't matter in the slightest. Judging by the power draw of the CPUs you buy you should just go multi-socket instead of overclocking a really inefficient CPU to begin with.
7.) I think you are a little bit confused about CPUs. Slightly more performance, slightly if any games at all....

"The vast majority of desktop users, even enthusiast-class users, will likely have no need for Sandy Bridge E. The Core i7 3960X may be the world's fastest desktop CPU, but it really requires a heavily threaded workload to prove it. What the 3960X doesn't do is make your gaming experience any better or speed up the majority of desktop applications. " -Anandtech

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5091/i...gh-end-alive/9

" I have no reasons to believe Sandy Bridge E is going to do anything for a gamer that is already using a 2500K or 2600K that has been clocked up. Surely those two will save you some money on power as well. But I guess if you are looking for a new way to heat your computer room this winter, Sandy Bridge E should be on your short list. Maybe they will start selling these at Home Depot?" -HARDOCP

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/...essor_review/9

[Raphtheone]

Since Fuzzeekee spent a lot of words not really clarifying anything (other than "you are wrong, here's some quotes that are very open for interpretation to prove it"), I took the liberty to search for some 2500k vs E3-1230 expert reviews/benchmarks and some user reviews. I couldn't find a single user (including on tomshardware boards) that supported the idea of using Xeon chips in a gaming computer (which this thread is about) over a 2500k.

And more notably, I couldn't find a single expert review where they favor a Xeon over a 2500k, or 2600k for gaming. Because I couldn't find a single expert review like that. I have to wonder why that is, and assume there's one of two reasons for that. Either it's a very bad idea, or it's so revolutionary that no one has thought about it yet.

The link provided is very clear; Xeon outperforms a 2600k in 4 out of 26 tests, not counting the <=~1,x% results, in non-gaming related benches. You spend a lot of words not exactly saying anything of importance. Except the part where you state that i7-3960x + GTX-590 Quad SLI isn't a gaming machine. That one made me smile.

So basically... provide relevant numbers. Please.

[Fuzzeekee]

Since Fuzzeekee spent a lot of words (1.)not really clarifying anything (other than "you are wrong, here's some quotes that are very open for interpretation to prove it"), I took the liberty to search for some 2500k vs E3-1230 expert reviews/benchmarks and some user reviews. (2A.) I couldn't find a single user (including on tomshardware boards) that supported the idea of using Xeon chips in a gaming computer (which this thread is about) over a 2500k.

And more notably, I couldn't find a single expert review where they favor a Xeon over a 2500k, or 2600k for gaming. Because I couldn't find a (2B.)single expert review like that. I have to wonder why that is, and assume there's one of two reasons for that. Either it's a very bad idea, or it's so revolutionary that no one has thought about it yet.

The link provided is very clear; (3.) Xeon outperforms a 2600k in 4 out of 26 tests, not counting the <=~1,x% results, in non-gaming related benches. You spend a lot of words not exactly saying anything of importance. (4.) Except the part where you state that i7-3960x + GTX-590 Quad SLI isn't a gaming machine. That one made me smile.

(5.)So basically... provide relevant numbers. Please.

1.) I provided links by experts.
2.) unfortunately you don't have any proof of that, since lots of people prefer the xeon and we will see why below.
3.) Did you even look at my links, the xeon is a retooled 2600 ...I think someone named "raptheone" is up to no good.
4.) Smile for what? The only thing is the video cards. And my post was to him and the OP, not you, but since it's about you we will continue without going off topic

5.) You can scroll up and read my post with "relevant" numbers, since you don't know that that particular xeon is just an i7 2600 series that has been respun ( <<< wow what's that?)...But then again I'm talking to you, and you don't understand engineering terms so we can't get too complex or you'll drop the ball, and I'm not here to troll, which you are.

*sigh* @ the newbies on this forum...Always going off-topic.

[Cyanotical]

<snip>

1. no, hardly any professional considers it valid, if you dont believe me, go ask a few, in fact go ask a few dozen, i've already given my opinion so thats 1 to start with

2. you still dont understand how important overclocking is to a gaming computer

3. no, the 2500k is the preferred gaming CPU, its available for $180, not the 2600k

4. seriously? no it's not, xeons are catered to servers and the support is catered to server manufacturers

5. its not like i build custom servers or anything.....

6. see number 2, and multi-socket? really?

7. at no point would anyone here recommend the 3960x for gaming, you are trying to make an argument, but you have nothing, everyone knows this, the 3960x will show the highest framerate in games, and in fact according to TTL beats out dual E5-2687 Xeons in 3dmark, that doesn't mean we go around recommending it to people, we are well aware that if the 3960x gets 65 fps, then the 2500k will get 59, and that in terms of price vs performance, the 2500k is the better choice


you propose we use multisocket low power CPUs instead of a single high power CPU, which is proof enough that you have no idea what you are talking about, and have almost no knowledge of core performance

you recommend an enterprise class CPU to someone who wants to build a gaming computer, and then argue with those who are far more knowledgeable and experienced on the subject, then try to post non relevant and out of context quotes to prove your point

also, you seem to have this idea that people care about efficiency, and perhaps a few do, but most gamers don't

overall, your post reads like a bad wannabe sysadmin who barely passed his A+ cert, you have enough knowledge to argue, but not enough in the right areas to make any valid points

also, dont call us noobs

[Raphtheone]

@Fuzzeekee
No need to be condescending, it only makes your arguments look even weaker. Your presumptuous attitude towards my persona doesn't help either. Don't you wish to be taken seriously?

Yes, I did read your "expert review", as well as your quotes that are highly susceptible to interpretation, as in, I don't see how they do anything but disprove your own arguments. I actually found your link when googling myself, and later when I replied I noticed you had linked to it. The /facepalm moment upon that realization was ginormous. I'm not trying to devalue your input, but please understand that this is a thread about a CPU that should fit in a gaming machine, and you're linking only one review (by a site I've never heard of = no credibility), and it's not even based on gaming. The wPrime numbers (only section where the Xeon clearly won) won't matter when playing games. What's worse, the Xeon doesn't even outperform the 2600k in the benchmark you linked. I highlighted it for you, for increased readability:

http://i.imgur.com/j3uID.png

But the benchmark shouldn't even be taken seriously. No where do I see FPS numbers in various games. If you can provide some (as I already mentioned, I tried finding on my own without success) that shows that the Xeon outperforms a 2500k (not the 2600k), has better performance/wattage and price for purchase (including compatible components etc), I will admit being wrong.

But please don't post fallacies on a public forum and react negatively when a random person calls you out on it.

[Woa]

AMD CPUs are not as good as Intel's, in both performance and cost effectiveness

AMD GPUs are not "Bang for your Buck" the 7970 has less bang, and costs more buck then the 680

if you can wait will the end of the month, Ivy bridge will be released and will be priced identically to Sandy bridge, if you cant wait, you're not missing out on a ton of performance

Xeons are not for gaming, and don't make good gaming CPUs

I'm seeing a lot of unjust bulldozer hate. I'm betting hardly any of you have any real hands on with bulldozer chips and you're spouting that they're horrible and don't compair to intels chips. All you see are benchmarks posted and base your assumptions off that. Sure the 8100s arent a very good bang for buck and they get beaten by the i5's and 7s in just about everything. That doesn't mean the lower end bulldozer chips arent worth it. I'll match my fx 4100 to any i3 and slaughter it. That's because I can OC my 4100 very, *very* easily to 4.4ghz and even boots @ 5 ghz....on stock cooler. Now sure it isn't for everyone since you have to know a little something about computers to be able to OC correctly. Probably not the best for the OP. Still though, if you don't know don't tell everyone that the AMD cpu's are rubbish. The 4100s can not be beat at their price point. Also, you don't need an i5 to play wow. I'm playing wow every day with a 4100 @ ultra settings. I might dip into the 30's in raids but thats still very playable.

[Raphtheone]

It's a common misconception to claim that a particular brand or manufacturer are always best/worst. You can't say that intel CPU's are best performing at their price point, period. Or that all Nvidia cards are always "this" type and AMD cards "that" type. It all depends on the price point, and what rival products are available. You know those "best CPU/GPU for your money" that some sites list and update every month? I've yet to see a list that is ALL Nvidia/AMD or AMD/Intel, on every price point, from lowest low-end to highest high-end.

With that said, Bulldozer can't compete with a 2500k in gaming, or overclocking for that matter. If you have the dough, it's definitely worth coughing up. Same goes if you compare 550Ti with a 6950. Here in Sweden the 6950 costs more than twice as much, but they're not targeted at the same audience. Ofc 550Ti falls short in comparison, but it doesn't make it a bad card.

[Deleted]

Do NOT get AMD if you are going to play wow, that goes for graphics also. Plus amd cpu's are rubbish at gaming compared to an i5, and the i5 is priced right and is a really good deal.

There are many benches, and nividia is always better in wow than amd. That is a fact.

Many benches as in; facing a wall in a zone with only you in it? Yeah there might be some difference between AMD and Nvidia there. Raid wise, I highly doubt there a huge difference, if any, between AMD and Nvidia.

Don't go fanboy'ish on the forums here. If you're going to make arguements then at least back them up with your so called benches.

[Uggorthaholy]

Alright, back on topic, help the OP figure out what he's going to get, do not continue debating chips that are irrelevant in this thread.

[Cyanotical]

Alright, back on topic, help the OP figure out what he's going to get, do not continue debating chips that are irrelevant in this thread.

that is somewhat difficult when someone keeps coming in a giving out information that every moderator and regular here knows is bs


but back on topic

the AMD FX-4170 is 4.2Ghz stock and would be a cheap alternative to a 2500k,especialyl if you are skiddish about overclocking

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...09&Tpk=FX-4170

although, at 125w, you would need a quality MB for it, which may diminish it's price value

[Lolkrayd]

i don't know if an AMD processor is better than an i5 2500k for WoW
I swap over to the i5 2500k from an AMD phenom II x6 1100t
They did about the same outside of raids but during raids my phenom would dip to 10fps during warlords aoe phase

My i5 never dipped below 20
same specs when this was tested just diff cpus

though when I bought the phenom it was 180 and the 2500k was about 250+
but I guess I don't have proof of a phenom vs fx for amd