Skip navigation
Vern Reynolds-Braun
Currently Being Moderated

x58 chipset vs z68 chipset?

May 17, 2011 6:44 AM

I'm building a new (my thrid) dekstop editing system for Master Collection CS5.5, primarily for video editing. I noticed, while searching mobo's that  Gigbagbyte has mobo's available that are Intel 1155 Z68 chipsets and also 1366 x58 Chipsets.

Does anyone have any opinions/experience to help me choose between the two?

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2011 7:13 AM   in reply to Vern Reynolds-Braun
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2011 7:46 AM   in reply to Vern Reynolds-Braun

    its very simple

    if you dont need a raid card for a large raid array (8+ drives) then the P67/Z68 sandy bridge is the smart money. the 2600 is right there with the 980x.

     

    Scott

    ADK

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2011 7:55 AM   in reply to Scott Chichelli

    It is very simple:

     

    If you never want a raid controller and never want a BM, Aja or Matrox card, then you are OK. If you may want one in the future, you are out-of-luck.

     

    If you want a system that is (when heavily overclocking) around PAR with a 920, then the 2600K is the way to go. I you want something that performs about equal to a 950, forget about a 2600 CPU.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2011 8:07 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Harm,

    How many times are we going to do this.

     

    1) you most certainly can use a Decklink, AJA, Matrox with sandy quite telling people they cant.

    They work 100% fine. End of stinking story dude.

    Have you tried one? NO! have you benchmarked one? NO do you have any experience to draw from? NO..

    We do.. so stop spreading this false propaganda.

    And to end this once and for all I am making Eric stop working on systems to finally benchmark the sandy bridge WITH a raid card.

     

    2) round and round we go. Only YOUR 920 has any kind of decent numbers on PPBM

    Everyone else's falls on their face when compared to the 2600k. that included every X58 processor other than the 980x.

    And only those with CRAZY raid arrays beat it..

     

    In a REAL world test then 2600 does even better.

    I don’t know why you have to cling to this absurd idea that X58 beats the 2600.

     

    A REAL world test:

    4 WD 1Tb Sata 64 Meg Cache 600 Drives in 2 Raid 0 arrays

    Video material - AVCHD 1080P 24 Frame Each Cut to 30 minutes of material

    Export Codec - H264 HDTV 1080P 24 Preset Default

    4 Effects per Layer - Fast Color Corrector, Brightness & Contrast, Video Limiter, Sharpen

    Each Layer Scaled to 50% for 4 frame PinP view.

     

    I7 2600K 3.4GHZ Turbo to 4.7GHz  <---winner

    16GB Blackline 1600 CL 9

    470GTX

    3 Layer - 31:35

    4 Layer - 34:35

     

    I7 980X 4GHZ   <----looser

    12GB Blackline 1600 CL 9

    570GTX

    3 Layer - 32:30

    4 Layer - 35:25 

     

    Scott

    ADK

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2011 8:23 AM   in reply to Scott Chichelli

    Scott/Eric

     

    Why only 12 GB of RAM for the X58 when we know that optimum performance requires more than 12 GB?

     

    Was this CS5 or CS5.5?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2011 4:35 PM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Potentially, true. Practically, however, I would not call the i7-9xx a good BFTB any longer because it requires spending an extra several hundred to several thousand dollars in coolers and drives just to perform as well as it should. In fact, I would not go for an i7-9xx quad-core CPU without increasing the total system budget to more than $2,500 USD.

     

    And as I had demonstrated many times (based on the systems that I had submitted to the PPBM5 site), no i7-9xx quad-core system without a discrete hardware RAID controller card performs as well as my current i7-2600K system that's also without a RAID card unless I apply an extremely massive overclock to the i7-9xx (which in my environment is completely impossible without spending thousands of extra dollars USD for a liquid nitrogen CPU cooler). The best overclocked score at the maximum comfortable overclock out of my i7-950 when I had the CPU was 209 s (with 16GB of RAM) @ 4.0 GHz - and that's still slower than the 202 s achieved by the i7-2600K @ 3.8 GHz. Now I know why: Without the RAID controller to take the burden off the CPU, the scores for the MPEG2 DVD and especially H.264 BR encodes are quite a bit slower than it should have been. In addition, the communication between the ICH10R and the X58 IOH takes place at only half the bandwidth of the connection between the LGA 1155 CPU and the P67 PCH, resulting in the X58 platform being not as efficient as it should be without the discrete RAID card installed in one of the PCIe 2.0 x16 slots.

     

    And in my testing the i7-950 is actually a bit slower than the i7-920 on a per-clock basis even though they are both Bloomfield CPUs. This might be due to the QPI clock being slower on the 950 than on the 920 at the same GHz clock level. (After all, the i7-950 does not need its BCLK to be raised as high as the i7-920 does just to reach any given overclocked speed.)

     

    Message was edited by: RjL190365

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2011 8:39 AM   in reply to Bill Gehrke

    Also proven is the difference from 12 to 24gig ram is nominal

    Its more to do with workflow, effects etc as to if its much of an improvement..

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2011 8:41 AM   in reply to Scott Chichelli

    Actually, there is a much greater difference in CS5 performance between 12GB and 16GB, especially in MPEG2 encodes, than between 16GB and 24GB.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2011 8:50 AM   in reply to RjL190365

    You are right Randall, but that argument falls on deaf ears with Scott. He can't seem to understand it. Maybe he should let Eric do the talking.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2011 9:02 AM   in reply to Scott Chichelli

    i7 2600K 4.7GHZ  <---loser

    16GB Blackline 1600 CL 9

    470GTX

    3 Layer - 31:35

    4 Layer - 34:35

     

    I7 980X 4GHZ   <----winner

    24GB Blackline 1600 CL 9

    470GTX

    3 Layer - 28:30

    4 Layer - 30:25

     

    Shows you.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2011 9:07 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    That’s your reply? Come on Harm you are a man of many words...

     

    So then are you saying the only reason the sandy bridge wins is over 4 gig ram?

    But you would also argue elsewhere that triple channel out does dual channel

     

    So tell me how do I retest that’s fair in your eyes. Since we have the inferior dual channel sandy with 16G max

    And the X58 triple channel with 24max?

     

    SB with 8? SB with 12?

    X58 with 16? Or 24?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2011 9:15 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Where are you getting those numbers from?

    I cant find them in my files anywhere

    I looked in CS5, 5.02, 5.03 and 5.5 folders of benchmarks we have..

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2011 9:23 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Harm,

     

    Your point is valid primarily because CS5 scales well with more threads. Those results show only that a 12-thread CPU performs better than an 8-thread CPU. Enough said.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2011 10:42 AM   in reply to RjL190365

    Surely the bottom line is that this is not a good time to build a new system?  The i7 range is getting past its sell-by date, and the Sandy Bridge range is still in its infancy.

     

    You guys are trying to compare apples with oranges.  Harm promotes a system which delivers absolute power and speed, while Scott builds solid commercial systems which deliver all the power and speed that the overwhelming majority of users need.  This is like comparing a Ferrari Dino with my BMW 530d touring!

     

    It is a few months only till we get the second generation Sandy Bridge motherboards, and then the source of all this bickering will be history.

     

    Patience is the order of the day!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2011 10:52 AM   in reply to Alan Craven

    Not a bad comparison..

    Don’t forget I do sell the Ferrari as well..

    Dual Xeons @ 4GHz, 48Gig ram, and 2 sets raid 5 8 drive raid arrays... a mere $22k

     

    About 2-5% of Adobe users need that kind of insane power

    Yes the rest only need a SB system..

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2011 3:22 PM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    BTW where did this unfounded rumor start that you could not use Blackmagic, AJA, Or Matrox cards with the SB platform. I have been testing, selling, and shipping I/O cards on these since they launched. Remember, most of the  I/O cards are PCI-e 1X cards which work fine on the SB boards without changing the Video card slot. There are also 1155 boards out there that give you other slot configs for the 4X cards as well. This rumor is completely false.

     

    BTW thanks for the extra work

     

    Eric

    ADK

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2011 4:50 PM   in reply to ECBowen

    Thanks Eric. However, one would need a motherboard with a PLX and/or an NF200 extender chip in order to use all of the PCIe slots on an LGA 1155 motherboard that has three x16 physical PCIe slots. My Asus P8P67 Pro, without the NF200 or PLX chip, shares its PCIe x4 slot with both PCIe x1 slots, the eSATA controller and the second (front panel) USB 3.0 controller chip. Setting the x4 slot to its full bandwidth means that I could no longer add any additional PCIe cards to that system if both of the other x16 slots are occupied - nor could I use any eSATA drives, and I could only use the two onboard USB 3.0 ports.

     

    Message was edited by: RjL190365

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2011 5:32 PM   in reply to RjL190365

    We are not talking about using all the slots only adding a 1X card

    16x is off the processor and isolated (assuming you only have a vid card) however there are generally 2 16x when adding something into the 2nd 16x is when that get reduced to 2x 8 electrical

    (Will have a definitive answer as to if adding a raid card into the other 16x will reduce video or drive ability in a day or so) tired of hearing about that as well..

     

    There is an additional 8 PCIe X1 off the south bridge if you will or PCH. An average board  looks like this.

    1) firewire

    2) GB Ethernet

    3) eSata

    4) PCIe to PCI bridge

    5) PCIe to USB3

    6,7,8) actual 1x slots

     

    Each 1x is capable of 5GB/s

    The DMI is 20GB/s

    That means 4 of the 1X can be active at full bandwidth at once, (where it seems people arrived at the 20 lanes) or all 8 at 1/2 bandwidth.

     

    Let me also remind you that I know of nothing that saturates the PCIe bus 100% not even raid cards (assuming an 8x or 4x slot) and certainly not a capture card.

    In various benchmark tests of PCI vs PCIe there were little to no difference in ability. (raid cards, capture cards, pro audio interfaces)

    All that to say again nothing uses the full bandwidth.

     

    Looking at all 8 PCIe 1x slots/connections I don’t see 4 being used simultaneously under any circumstance. Even adding a pro audio interface into the mix.

     

    So again adding a capture/preview card to the sandy bridge platform works 100% right and with 100% performance ability. (not counting the driver issues with matrox)

     

     

    Scott

    ADK

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2011 6:46 PM   in reply to Scott Chichelli

    Sorry that I didn't make it clear enough, Scott. I was speaking for those people who want to use more than three PCIe cards in the same system. I do understand that relatively few people have even three PCIe cards, let alone four or five, in the same system.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 18, 2011 6:34 AM   in reply to RjL190365

    On a side note to that.. for pro audio we have had EVERY slot filled and it works flawlessly

    Including using 2 RME Madi cards which do 64 I/O each card and 4 UAD cards (DSP cards)

    And doing it at the lowest buffer setting. (only audio guys will get this)

    Suffice it to say that’s a lot of bandwidth being used

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 18, 2011 3:37 PM   in reply to Scott Chichelli

    I can attest (as an audio guy) that this scenario is definitely impressive, and bandwidth intensive.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 18, 2011 3:49 PM   in reply to TyRip

    and just to add to that we had all 128 INs and OUTs on the 2 madi cards running with the UADs @ 95%

     

    Now I do have to mention that 2 x PCI madi will not work on SB.. at least not the board we use.

    however

    But we just shipped a system with 1 PCI madi and 3 PCIe madi for live recording 128 @ 96k. (or 256 @ 48k)

    Also it had a 4 drive raid 5 for the recording drive.

    So much for lite bandwidth ability on SB platform

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points