How crazy would it be, and how beneficial would it be for me to upgrade my FX6300 with a 970 motherboard to a used Xeon X5650 and a X58 motherboard and overclock the balls out of it? I hear that it actually trades blows with the 4770k, and would be a unique experience and experiment.
PC partspicker list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2N3kRB
Core to core with your 6300 your going to be losing speed. Definitely much slower then the 4770k unless your overclocking like crazy and using programs that take 100% advantage of 12 threads.
An X5650, when over clocked, is on par with a 3930k in some cases. I recommend you opt for the X5670 as they are only $100 on eBay right now. If you arn't using two, a W3670 has slightly better single core performance. Good luck finding an X58 board under $100 that isn't for parts or repair (can't find a damn one). X79 boards can be had for $120, as well as their six core counterparts so why not go that route?
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Xeon-X5670-vs-AMD-FX-6300
As far as I was aware the X5670 is just clocked slightly higher than the X5650, which if I am overclocking they will yield about the same performance. I already found myself a x58 motherboard that I can use for a decent price. What 6 core CPU are you talking about that is x79 compatible for $120?
I would be upgrading to a 4430, but this seems like it would be more fun, and can wield better results overall.
Zippy never, NEVER reference cpuboss. Nothing they do should be counted as scientific as they run different iterations of benchmarks on there processors. Example; they might have run version 2.5 of whatever benchmark they're using on the X5670 and then years later ran the 6300 on the 5.0 version of the same software. This causes inaccurate results and numbers that should be disregard. The 6300 is faster core to core although cpuboss would like to say it blows in comparison to the X5670
Your going to be losing performance. Go with the 4430 or stick with the 6300. Going with the xeon is going backwards
Unfortunately there is no concrete proof that states either way. The best information that I have for comparing stats for an overclocked x5650 is with userbenchmark, which the overclocked x5650 beats the overclocked 6300 and the 4430 in all aspects.
I think by default the tdp is higher allowing a higher oc on stock voltages which would be beneficial for the temperature and longevity of the chip. What deal are you getting on the board and CPU? The Fx will overall be better as nothing uses 12 threads. It's like how an i5 3570k will beat a i7 980x in most tasks besides rendering.
$70 for the x5650 and $130 for the motherboard after shipping.
Trading blows? in terms of what?
in some productivity tasks, the the Xeon X5650 6 core 12 threads will win in some cases offcourse. But in terms of rendering the haswell again will be a clear winner, especialy with the avx2 instruction set on the 4790k, rendering applications that have implemented support for AVX2 will definitely run better on haswell 2.0, and im not even gonne talk about haswell-E
in gaming haswell will simply be better. because of the better single threaded performance.
I would not spend money on something that does not give me a huge difference. The fx6300 is still a good cpu, it just depends on what you do, and how fast you want to do it :) I'd wait.
It has better single threaded performance than the 4430, but not the 4770k.
I am not really trying to compare it to a 4770k, as I know that for gaming it will not be an improvement, but for a $200 price range it is a better option than the 4430 + mobo, and will be an improvement over my current 6300 as well.
This used to be a $1000 CPU just a couple of years ago, which the performance increase from SandyBridge to Haswell really is about 10%, which most improvements have been for power consumption.
I do agree that this CPU was not at all made for gaming, but it is one of the last overclockable Xeons, and when overclocked it does very well of any task thrown at it, and will most likely not be a limiting factor in a budgeted gaming rig.
do you think that that 6 year old xeon has a better single threaded performance then an haswell i5?
i dont think so ☺
a what used to be over $1000 Xeon, that will be overclocked to almost double its standard ghz, I think so. The only benchmarks I have are from UserBenchmark but the single performance of a x560 at 4ghz is 104pts average, compared to 93.2 points average for the 4430. I know that it is not the best benchmarks for definite results, but it does say something.
I have many problems with that test considering the test type. That test might use all 12 threads and thus run faster on the xeon. But that also means that 3 xeon threads are comparable to 1 thread on the I5 and a similar ratio for the fx. This really isn't going to be a win for the xeon in many applications. How many games are 12 way threaded? I can only name one being crysis 3 and that barely made a difference. Most games are made to use up to 4 threads with 8 becoming more common. 8 should be the top end for a long while as current consoles have 8 AMD jaguar cores in them and games are optimized for the consoles above all else. So in games your going to be losing performance over an fx or I5. In that test your winning but in day to day tasks your losing.
Haswell i5 blows that xeon out of the water in gaming.
Games relay on single threaded performance, or performance per core just how you look at it. Games dont use more then 4 main threads, there are only a few games that have the capabillity to scale over all availeble threads, but this does not gonne give you any siginicant better fps scores.
The performance per core from a 4690K for example is allot better then that old xeon. The xeon might only win in some productivity calculations and what not. But even in rendering now days, the xeon will most likely fall behind an haswell i7, depending on the application.
I have a Z800 workstation with X5650's in it - 2.66GHz base clock 3.06GHz turbo. Performance wise it was very similar to an FX8320 at stockspeeds as far as gaming went with the same card. So I would say a Westmere CPU clocked the same as Piledriver will feel like an upgrade - although there will no doubt be exceptions where certain instruction sets are better supported on the AMD FX.
I seem to remember Sandybridge being regraded as having around 15% better IPC than Westmere but can't find any good references to that.
If an X58 board comes into my possession one of those X5650's would definitely be getting OC'ed to 4GHz+ to see what it could do - I just won't be spending any cash to find out :-)
You fine w/ eBay? People were selling them for around $120-150 about a week ago last I checked.