Ivy Bridge E Xeon Processor's for Gaming? Does the e5 2687w v2 have a chance?

[ScatterVolt]

With the new dawn of Ivy Bridge E, we know that there is the new 4960x, 4930k, and 4820k, but want I am curious about is how the new e5 2687w v2 could perform as an Ivy bridge E gaming cpu.

I know all about how games don't utilize the full potential of an xeon processor, and still is optimized for those quad core cpu's. But if you were to go all out and make the fastest possible gaming pc in the world, would you choose the e5 2687w v2 for it, or the 4960x? From looking at previous gaming benchmarks on the sandy bridge e xeon processors, they were awesome on the physics side of gaming, and even held really high frames that would even compete with the 3970x or 3770k at the time. But for this ultimate gaming pc, this would have to shoot for running games at 4k at the highest settings possible, which I don't know if Ivy Bridge-E processor's would have an advantage over the smaller haswell cpu's.

What makes me concerned about the 2687w v2 is that it actually has a high clock speed up to 4.0ghz, and can utilize 1866mhz ram without having to O'cing the cpu. Plus it will use the new 22nm architecture which I don't know if that will make that much of a difference in gaming.
So would it be a good cpu for the top of the line gaming?

 

[andresahues]

To compare Xeon to Core i7 processors *of the same generation* is like comparing GeForce to Quadro video cards. Most people don't make use of the certified drivers/applications or performance advantage to justify the extra money.

Xeons consume less power but are not good for overclocking at all. They perform very similar if not equal to the equivalent Core i7 CPUs for most applications (that is because they are basically the very same processor inside, minus one new instruction set and "sometimes" a small part of the cache disabled on Core i7; they both are LGA2011). Xeons also have the ability to use ECC RAM which is better/faster for memory intensive applications that take advantage of the error-correction like photorealistic 3D rendering for design or product visualization.

I would not recommend a Xeon E5-2600 series unless you are going to use it on a dual socket motherboard; I strongly recommend you get an E5-1600 series (single socket) processor instead. The later are available at about the same price as the equivalent Core i7 (literally 0% difference in reference price according to Intel) because they are for single socket operation only.

Dual socket processors run at a slower frequency because they are intended for multiple socket operation, and are also more expensive. A processor with a faster frequency can compensate for less CPU cores in most applications (that is not heavily optimized for SMP, most games included) i.e. a 4GHz *4-cores* Core i-7 will compare fairly to a 3GHz *6-cores* Core i-7...

I would recommend the new Ivy Bridge-E Core i7-4930K (6 cores, 12 threads; $579.99 on Newegg) instead of Xeon E5-1650 v2 (Ivy Bridge-EP; 6 cores, 12 threads). The Xeon is 100MHz faster and again the price difference is not much; the only problem is that the Xeon is not widely available.

I would also recommend these alternatives: Core i7-3930K (6-core Sandy Bridge-E), Xeon E5-1650 (6-core Sandy Bridge-EP); Core i7-4820K (4-core Ivy Bridge-E), Core i7-3820K (4-core Sandy Bridge-E). The quad-cores are about half the price of the hexa-cores and in my opinion the performance difference is not noticeable for gaming. I would spend the money on more RAM, a better video card, or maybe SLI.

For stability it is extremely important to pair these processors with a great motherboard (any variation of Asus P9X79 will do), a very good power supply, and good RAM for quad-channel configuration (I recommend Corsair and G.Skill). Definitely go for a socket 2011 instead of a slower platform.

I'm an Industrial Designer and have been using gaming PCs instead of workstations for the last ten years; the money savings are significant and my applications run without any issue. You go for a Xeon if you need the extra speed for something like 3D rendering or for heavy (CPU-intensive) data processing, but for games it doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[andresahues]

Back to your original question, I don't think the Xeon E5-2687W v2 would be faster for gaming. Let me explain:

To the best of my knowledge a Xeon with ECC memory will be slower for certain tasks (like gaming).

Even with its 8-cores the base frequency is 3.4GHz vs. 3.6GHz of the Core i7-4960X Extreme Edition. Although it is pretty predictable, I'm not sure if you can fully control when the processor reaches its top turbo speed (unless you overclock it of course, and then it wouldn't matter).

It is like comparing a 1000bhp turbocharged Corvette (with a heavy-duty differential and extra-large Michelin tires to handle such power) vs. a stock Porsche 911 Turbo. The 911 is by no means sluggish but the modified Corvette will be faster on a straight line. For gaming you want that RAW power.

On the above example an overclocked Core i7-4960X would be the Corvette, an Asus P9X79 mobo would be the heavy-duty differential, and quad-channel/low-latency RAM would be the Michelins.

As I understand with a socket 2011/X79 chipset only if you run a quad or triple-SLI configuration the processor may become the bottleneck of the system. And all of the Ivy Bridge-E and Sandy Bridge-E (please note the E) processors on my previous post would be good enough to handle such extreme configuration.

I agree with you that if money were no object, I would be running on a dual 10-core Xeon E5-2600 v2 instead of my Core i7. BUT what I mean is that it won't necessarily be faster... One must use the right tool for the right job!

Tom's Hardware has some great articles about all this 🙂

 

[ScatterVolt]

Back to your original question, I don't think the Xeon E5-2687W v2 would be faster for gaming. Let me explain:

To the best of my knowledge a Xeon with ECC memory will be slower for certain tasks (like gaming).

Even with its 8-cores the base frequency is 3.4GHz vs. 3.6GHz of the Core i7-4960X Extreme Edition. Although it is pretty predictable, I'm not sure if you can fully control when the processor reaches its top turbo speed (unless you overclock it of course, and then it wouldn't matter).

It is like comparing a 1000bhp turbocharged Corvette (with a heavy-duty differential and extra-large Michelin tires to handle such power) vs. a stock Porsche 911 Turbo. The 911 is by no means sluggish but the modified Corvette will be faster on a straight line. For gaming you want that RAW power.

On the above example an overclocked Core i7-4960X would be the Corvette, an Asus P9X79 mobo would be the heavy-duty differential, and quad-channel/low-latency RAM would be the Michelins.

As I understand with a socket 2011/X79 chipset only if you run a quad or triple-SLI configuration the processor may become the bottleneck of the system. And all of the Ivy Bridge-E and Sandy Bridge-E (please note the E) processors on my previous post would be good enough to handle such extreme configuration.

I agree with you that if money were no object, I would be running on a dual 10-core Xeon E5-2600 v2 instead of my Core i7. BUT what I mean is that it won't necessarily be faster... One must use the right tool for the right job!

Tom's Hardware has some great articles about all this 🙂

Thanks man! I was just inspired by Maximum PC's Dream Machine of 2012, to use an xeon processor. Back then I would of gone iwth the 3970x because really the preveious 2687w was still sort of a low clock, and was limited to 1600mhz ram. But with the new 2687w v2 it would have a better clock speed, 1866mhz default ram (which is the sweet spot for gaming). So I thought it had a chance, but with all of your explaning I now really understand how those xeon processors would perform in gaming. They were made for a totally different use than gaming.
But if they were overclockable in the future, would they still be viable for gaming? Just saying.

 

[andresahues]

Xeons are great, period. I'm not saying that you should walk away from a Xeon processor...

There are Core i7 equivalents to certain Xeon processors (and they perform about the same, at least for gaming):

Core i7-4930K and Xeon E5-1650 v2
Core i7-4770 and Xeon E3-1230 v3 (no integrated GPU)

But Xeons don't overclock. Although they usually dissipate about half the heat of their Core i7 counterparts, they have a locked multiplier. That is the way Intel wants it to be, and it is very unlikely that they change it in the future. Xeons are designed for high-availability (very reliable), high-density applications (server racks). They work as intended and you don't mess with them (because of that).

I haven't try, it would be interesting to see how a Xeon overclocks. I guess that would be like overclocking a Core 2 Quad, which also has a locked multiplier. I still have my old Q6600 🙂

I believe that Xeons can use regular memory, not only ECC; I understand it depends on the motherboard but don't quote me on that. But whether or not your application benefits from ECC is a different matter.

Just remember that when you go with an "E" (for enthusiasts) processor and chipset you are gaining some advantages, but you are giving up a few:

Ivy Bridge-E processors don't have a built-in GPU, so no Quick Sync Video (to accelerate transcoding); and X79 doesn't have Smart Response Technology (SSD cache) built-into the chipset.

Again it all depends on your intended use (applications).

 

[andresahues]

I recommend you the following articles:

Intel's 12-Core Xeon With 30 MB Of L3: The New Mac Pro's CPU?
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-ep-xeon-e5-2697-v2-benchmarks,3585.html

Core i7-3970X Extreme Review: Can It Stomp An Eight-Core Xeon?
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3970x-sandy-bridge-e-benchmark,3348.html

---
Intel Core i7-4960X Review: Ivy Bridge-E, Benchmarked
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-4960x-ivy-bridge-e-benchmark,3557.html

The Core i7-4770K Review: Haswell Is Faster; Desktop Enthusiasts Yawn
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-4770k-haswell-review,3521.html


According to Haswell benchmark results games don't really use more than 4-cores nor take advantage of quad-channel memory.

Remember that you can always build a great gaming PC that has 80+ or even 90% of processing power/Performance of the latest and greatest for a lot less money...

 

[Sleepyhead Media]

i was curious about this same question.. the one advantage i see is the Xeon can be put in a duel socket config, now the i7's can't.
so dose this equal to double the power? and thus the only CPU you can cinfig in such a way for the most extreme Editing and Gamng rig?
E5-2687W V2 with a 4GHz boost.. id say two of these would dominate gamming.