Is this old Xeon bottlenecking my 1050 Ti?

[imrazor]

I've got an old Xeon E5620 (a tad slower than an i7-920) paired with a GTX 1050 Ti. Is the old CPU bottlenecking the much newer GPU?

There are a number of upgrade options. On of the cheapest would be an E5645 (6 cores/12 threads, but at the same clock speed 2.4GHz). Would more cores reduce bottlenecking, or is it all about IPC?

 

[10tacle]

Depends on your games and resolution as well as quality settings (including AA). Some games are more CPU bound up to 1080p, others more GPU bound. Still others respond to both equally. Skyrim for example favors CPU power at lower resolutions and settings. On the other end of the spectrum, Battlefield 1 favors GPU power. And this doesn't even take into consideration games that are poorly threaded that respond better to faster single cores.

With that said, no matter what games you play, they will not perform as well as say on a newer i5 or i7 build with that 1050Ti. As an overall average guesstimate, I'd say you are looking at about a 20-25% performance loss with that CPU over a newer chipset.

 

[tomgang]

I am not sure about E model of xeon but that low clocket CPU xeon does no favor to a modern GPU. Try an se if it can overclock else if i where you, i would try an find a X5650/60/70 6 core xeon. They are dead cheap on ebay and is well know to be great overclokkers. 4 GHz+ for these chips is very normal if cooled properly.

I can recommend overclock X58 cpu. I have been on I7 920 and overclock to 4.1 Ghz higher for benchmark and now i am on a I7 980X oc to 4.25 GHz that is I7 version of Xeon X5600 series CPU´s.

This is how i have clokket my CPU´s. al throw they are not xeon.

I7 920
http://peecee.dk/uploads/062017/3dmark_firestrike_rekord_1.jpg

http://peecee.dk/uploads/062017/CinebenchR154,3Ghz.jpg

I7 980X
http://peecee.dk/uploads/062017/Cinebench_R15_4.25_GHz.jpg

http://peecee.dk/uploads/062017/3Dmark_Fire_Strike_4.25_GHz.jpg

 

[imrazor]

@10tacle Thanks for the input. 25% seems like a severe handicap. I do have a 3570K system I've mothballed that can OC to 4.1/4.2 GHz. How much would it cut into that 25%? The problem with it, though, is that it doesn't support VT-d, which I need for running my Windows VM.

@tomgang The problem with overclocking my Xeon is that my workstation, a Dell Precision T5500, has no support for CPU overclocking. So I'm stuck in that regard. An X5650 is pretty cheap, but doesn't offer much of a clock speed increase over my E5620. I may have to save my pennies for an X5670 or higher clocked CPU. Part of my question, though, is whether the extra cores would compensate for a lack of raw clock speed.

 

[tomgang]

[quotemsg=19884475,0,321126]@10tacle Thanks for the input. 25% seems like a severe handicap. I do have a 3570K system I've mothballed that can OC to 4.1/4.2 GHz. How much would it cut into that 25%? The problem with it, though, is that it doesn't support VT-d, which I need for running my Windows VM.

@tomgang The problem with overclocking my Xeon is that my workstation, a Dell Precision T5500, has no support for CPU overclocking. So I'm stuck in that regard. An X5650 is pretty cheap, but doesn't offer much of a clock speed increase over my E5620. I may have to save my pennies for an X5670 or higher clocked CPU. Part of my question, though, is whether the extra cores would compensate for a lack of raw clock speed.[/quotemsg]

I see. if you benefits from more cores simply depends on that software you use supports more than 4 cores. If it does then yes you benefit from it, if not you properly know the answer to that now.

If you want overclock support, you will need to get a X58 motherboard that supports overclock, but the trouble is that cheap X58 motherboard can be hard to find. They tend to be over priced, but you can maybe be lucky.

Else there are Xeon W3690 that is the xeon version of I7 990X, but they are more pricy, but also clokket higher.

https://ark.intel.com/products/52586/Intel-Xeon-Processor-W3690-12M-Cache-3_46-GHz-6_40-GTs-Intel-QPI

But i se you have a I5 3570K cpu. that gives me an idea then. Sell your xeon workstation and that I5 cpu and then find a I7 3770K cpu and oc the crap out of it. That cut be another cheap upgrade.

if you want new cpu/mobo i will go at least after a real I5 Quad-core. In my opinien dual core just dosent cut it today beside a basic work pc.

 

[10tacle]

[quotemsg=19884475,0,321126]@10tacle Thanks for the input. 25% seems like a severe handicap. I do have a 3570K system I've mothballed that can OC to 4.1/4.2 GHz. How much would it cut into that 25%? The problem with it, though, is that it doesn't support VT-d, which I need for running my Windows VM.[/quotemsg]

Ivy Bridge is still good for a gaming chipset. You are at worst only going to see a few FPS loss over say a new Skylake or Kaby Lake i5 build. No worries at all. I still run my nearly six year old Sandy Bridge i5 2500K as a backup gaming rig.

Now like the other guy said you could upgrade with a used i7 3770K, but I wouldn't risk buying an older CPU like that. You never know if the previous owner abused it in an overclock with high voltage and it could be degraded. Here's an example of the various generation chip comparisons from Anandtech in some games with different GPUs:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/16

 

[imrazor]

Sorry for the late response, but I've been under the weather. So...would you feel nervous about upgrading to a non-K Ivy Bridge? No OC potential there, so I would think it would be less likely to be abused. Plus that would give me the VT-d feature I'm looking for. For some reason, Intel disabled VT-d on all the K-class Ivy Bridge chips.

 

[10tacle]

[quotemsg=19911480,0,321126]So...would you feel nervous about upgrading to a non-K Ivy Bridge? No OC potential there, so I would think it would be less likely to be abused. Plus that would give me the VT-d feature I'm looking for. For some reason, Intel disabled VT-d on all the K-class Ivy Bridge chips.[/quotemsg]

Absolutely! And as far as wondering why Intel disabled VT-d starting on i7 K-series (starting with Sandy bridge) was pure marketing idiocy by Intel. They figured that "enthusiasts" would buy the K-series and business oriented consumers the non-K series for running VMs and sell the non-Ks for less (hence increase sales for non-K). Complete idiocy. That's why I'm so glad that AMD has jumped back in the ring to bat around Intel with Ryzen. They severely needed it.