Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

A big cup of "zip it" or the definative final P67 vs X58 answer thread

May 19, 2011 3:14 PM

none of this will matter in 6 months however until then... this should be a sticky

 

2600K, Motherboard, 16gig ram $711

990x, motherboard, 12 gig ram $1408  24Gig ram $1552

 

why the 990x? its the only processor that can match or beat the 2600k either stock for stock or 4.7 vs 4.0GHz over clocks

this is fact not fiction you can not go by PPBM user submitted, due to far too many varibles both in user set up and hardware differences.

however when we use PPBM with identical systems other than swapping the 990 to the 2600 it shows the same as our in house tests.

(and not a negative comment with concern to the wonderful makers of PPBM Bill and Harm so please dont tkae it that way.. for an end user submitted test its fabulous!)

 

Adobe CS5.5:

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 990X 4.0 GHz

24GB Blackline 1600 CL 9  <--- this puts the test with 24gig to bed

580GTX <---- has better video as well hmmm.

3 Layer - 32:06

4 Layer - 34:45

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I7 2600K 4.7 GHz   <----winner with only 16 gig ram how is this possible? and if a 990 cant beat it how can a 920?

16GB Blackline 1600 CL 9

570GTX

3 Layer - 30:46

4 Layer - 33:36

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

you need a big raid array for AVCHD!

Complete nonsense.. same applies for needing a dual Xeon..

same test with a big 8 drive raid array

I7 2600K 4.7 GHz

16GB Blackline 1600 CL 9

570GTX

8 WD 1Tb Sata 64 Meg Cache 600 Drives in Raid 5 array with RS2BL080 controller

3 Layer - 29:33

4 Layer - 33:26  WOW that finished so much faster..  NOT.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

but you can't add a Capture/preview card to P67!

 

really? where did you hear this absurd fallacy? do you believe everything you read on the internet?

we have shipped a huge amount of systems with Decklink, in them, a few Aja and a few matrox <-- driver issue not P67 issue.. same issue occurs on X58

 

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)

 

But you can't add a raid card to P67!

 

really?

i am here to tell you yes you can and without using N200 chipset motherboard.

 

we (well Slacker Eric, in his defense he has been swamped) finally tested this. i only asked since Jan/Feb.

 

Adding an Intel RSBL080 8 drive raid controller see above test. not only did performance NOT decrease it increased, albeit a whopping 10 seconds.

yes the video card was reduced to a paltry 8x and according to the bios only running @ 2.5 GB/s where the raid card showed a full 5GB/s

yet there was no drop in cuda perfomance at all and all effects we use on our tests are cuda effects.

 

Now in all fairless of disclosure the drive benchmarks dropped from our previous tests on X58 which is odd, we are guessing the video card as its ramping up would take bandwidth from the controller even though its supposed to be running 8x.

 

previous X58

Intel SAS RS2PI080 8 Port controller with 512 DDR2 Ram

8x WD 1TB SATA 6 Gb/s, 64 MB Cache, 7200 RPM

8 Drive Raid 5 - 703.8MB/s read 670MB/s Write

 

with Sandy Bridge  550MB/s read  522 MB/s write

 

so here we do see a decent drop in performance.

1) this is still plenty of speed for even RED footage.

2) if you need more speed than that you should be on dual 3.33GHz Xeons anyway

3) the only point to having a large raid on a sandy or X58 in the first place is for redundacy. and even that does not replace back up..

 

So i can not see nor justify any reason to continue buying an X58 platform unless you just like to spend $841 more for nothing!

and remember these are the "budget" Sandy Bridge

i can't wait  until they release the big dogs.

 

Scott

ADK

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 19, 2011 3:20 PM   in reply to Scott Chichelli

    Thanks ,exactly.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 19, 2011 5:37 PM   in reply to Scott Chichelli

    Sounds really good. I'm very pleased to hear some of this, and thank you for performing the tests. I know you sell editing rigs, but you don't have to divulge so much info. Of course, having an open exchange of facts helps everyone in the end.

     

    One thing though, m'man - hit the ABC button occasionally. Even the title has a mis-spelling! Awesome piece otherwise.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 19, 2011 5:54 PM   in reply to Scott Chichelli

    Thanks for the results, Scott. It does mean that although there is a drop in the disk performance with an eight-disk array on Sandy Bridge versus the Gulftown, the drop is nowhere near as great as a lot of us would have believed.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 20, 2011 5:47 AM   in reply to Scott Chichelli

    Wow--timely. I was getting ready to drop a few Bennies (and then a few more) to upgrade my 930 to a 990x. It looks like I might be better starting from scratch, though.

     

    Assuming I were to keep my mobo (Asus P6X58D Premium) and the 24GB of Mushkin RAM--and that I don't need ANOTHER computer sitting around--am I really wrong to just upgrade the CPU, despite spending a few more bucks? I assume there will be nothing bigger and better coming along for X58...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 20, 2011 6:45 AM   in reply to Scott Chichelli

    A 970 vs. the 990x? Just on a bang-for-the-buck ratio? My 930 is already OC'ed at 4.0GHz, and while it's been incredibly stable (after junking the OCZ RAM I originally had--grumble), as I edit more AVCHD and DSLR footage it's just not as snappy as I'd like it to be.

     

    The cost savings are certainly attractive...

     

    Thanks for input, Scott!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 20, 2011 9:01 AM   in reply to Scott Chichelli

    Oh yeah, baby--4GHz and change! My RAM is running at 1691MHz, and has been rock-solid after I dumped the OCZ which seemed to give me issues at stock. Temps have been good too--the big honkin' Noctua cooler does wonders.

     

    Given what you said about GHz being king, is it really even worth the ~$600 for a couple of extra cores, assuming apples-to-apples on the core speed? I assumed the couple of extra cores would help do the heavy lifting on the AVCHD and DSLR material I'm working with frequently--and I may have more RED projects on the horizon, as well. I've got no issue spending the money on real improvements to performance, but there's no sense throwing good money after bad.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 20, 2011 9:16 AM   in reply to Colin Brougham

    Colin,

     

    What you spend and what you get does depend too on the rest of your system. Sorry for all the questions, but...

    1) What is your drive and controller setup now?

    2) What are your 4 PPBM5 scores

     

    Jim

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 20, 2011 9:37 AM   in reply to JEShort01

    Jim,

     

    My edit drives are four Samsung F3 1TBs in RAID5 on the mobo controller. It's been enough for me; I know it could be faster, but I'm not likely going to put money into an add-on controller at this point. That may be up for change in the future, but in the meantime, it's serving its purpose.

     

    Haven't run the PPBM5 test; I've been more interested in real world results than seeing where my system falls in the pantheon of other systems. I just did a fresh install, so I might give it a go just to see, but I keep my system up-to-date and fairly lean.

     

    Ultimately, if I'm going to put any money into an "old" system, it has to be for something that's going to get me the most improvement for the dollar. That's why I need to get it right the first time

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 20, 2011 4:04 PM   in reply to Colin Brougham

    Colin,

     

    I don't consider your system "old" (i7-930, X58, 24GB RAM, GTX 480, Samsung F3 1TB RAID), and it certainly sounds like a system that you could add to if you want to eeech out a bit more performance without any concerns of throwing money away. Heck, it sounds a lot like my current build, which is only 3 months old!

     

    If I had to guess, your best bang-for-the-buck improvement for your system would be to add a 2x1TB RAID 0 that you can use for previews, media cache, and exports; see Harm's Generic Guideline for Disk Setup thread for configuration details. If you try that and still want more ooomph, then go for the i7-970 too.

     

    Regarding the request for PPBM5 results, I find those very helpful to use as a metric to determine if a system has any weak spots. Then after you remedy those weak areas the end result is exactly what you do say that you want -- "real world results"!

     

    Cheers,

     

    Jim

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 21, 2011 6:21 AM   in reply to Colin Brougham

    Colin,

     

    You do not want to use the mobo controller in RAID 5 mode. I recently did a test with CS5 5.0.3 on my current system, and found that four drives in RAID 5 substantially slowed down the AVI encode (disk test) portion of the PPBM5 benchmark - from about 65 seconds with a two-disk RAID 0 to a whopping 480 seconds with a four-disk RAID 5! The total time in PPBM5 skyrocketed (or shall I say slowed down?) from 164 s to more than 580 s! (And that's with the P67 PCH transferring at twice as fast as the connection between the X58 IOH and the ICH10R.) The slower connection between the X58 IOH and the ICH10R would have degraded performance in RAID 5 by an even greater amount than what I had demonstrated.

     

    In other words, RAID 5 on the onboard Intel SATA controller is one sure way to make a system that otherwise would have performed near the top (D9) of the PPBM5 results list sink well into the bottom half (Q1) of that same list. And in the case of an i7-930 (at even 4.0 GHz), that performance might as well have approached or even fallen into the bottom 25% (D1) of the list.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 23, 2011 7:55 AM   in reply to RjL190365

    Hi Rj and Scott,

     

    If possible would you be able to have a look at my post about "sluggish response with AVCHD timeline on 990x" etc posted today. I had such issues with the software RAID 5 and would very much like to try it out as Scott suggests but have just had problems which i enumerate in that thread?

     

    Thanks for your time

    Anthony Freeman

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 1, 2011 4:04 AM   in reply to J.Elliott8652

    J.Elliott8652 wrote:

    One thing though, m'man - hit the ABC button occasionally. Even the title has a mis-spelling!

    Agree.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 9, 2011 10:33 AM   in reply to Scott Chichelli

    Thanks for this thread - exactly what I pondered a few days ago concerning X58.

     

    Core i7-990X Extreme Edition vs. Core i7-2600K. (page 1 to 13)

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-2600k-990x.html

     

    Their Conclusion:

    Page 13

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-2600k-990x_13.htm l#sect0

     

    Extracts from Page 13:

    The new microarchitecture turns out so strong, that Core i7-2600K managed to outperform many pricier products for a higher-end LGA1366 platform.

    In other words, in the face of the new Core i7-2600K Intel created some sort of diversion that from the inside totally messes up the company’s marketing strategy in the upper price segment. And now, as we can see, there is nothing they can do about it. Even the increase in the clock frequencies of their top-of-the-line six-core LGA1366 Gulftown processors doesn’t really help.

    In fact, the most expensive processor in the market, the 1000-dollar six-core Core i7-990X Extreme Edition, can be titled the today’s fastest CPU only during video processing and transcoding, final rendering and a few specific tasks, such as encryption and batch image processing.

    Unfortunately, overclocking also doesn’t help to fix the situation for Core i7-990X Extreme Edition. Even though this CPU belongs to the elite Special Edition overclocker series, the potential of the regular Core i7-2600K is just as good. While its price is three times lower, it can be easily overclocked by simply raising its clock frequency multiplier, and the maximum frequencies for this processor are not any lower than those of the Core i7-990X Extreme Edition.

    As for the specific recommendations, at this point it would make a lot of sense to walk away from the LGA1366 platform in general and the Core i7-990X Extreme Edition processor in particular. Much cheaper Core i7-2600K will be just as good in terms of performance in the majority of popular applications, and will leave Core i7-990X Extreme Edition behind in energy-efficiency and overclocking.

    So, in our opinion, those users who are looking to buy a high-performance system, have two possible options to consider. The first one is the following: they can decide on an LGA1155 platform and Core i7-2600K processor and spend the money they save in this case on a good mainboard, fast SSD and top-notch graphics accelerator (or even two). The second option is to wait until Intel releases something new to replace their high-end LGA1366 platform, which will include new generation multi-core processors, which will undoubtedly be superior.  ...”

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2011 6:06 AM   in reply to Scott Chichelli

    Scott,

     

    Referring to your original post.

    JCschild wrote:

     

    Now in all fairless of disclosure the drive benchmarks dropped from our previous tests on X58 which is odd, we are guessing the video card as its ramping up would take bandwidth from the controller even though its supposed to be running 8x.

     

    Which mobo was used when you ran these previous tests on X58?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 13, 2011 12:36 PM   in reply to JEShort01

    Hello Jim how you doing?

     

    I ask you this because I know you been trying the ppbm quite many times and I know you have a clear view of the results.

     

    Tell me what result I could achiev If I change my HDD config, lets say a god raid controller or a SSD PCI-X for the proyect?

     

    Dou you think a 2600k will performance better and give better result that my 950???

     

    Putting in acc that my disc config is 1 wd cblack for  os, and a 3x300 wd raptor for the proyect...

     

    My personal opinion is that @ the moment the best you can get is a i7970 and that having a i7930 is not meaning to buy a 2600k.

     

    And before think in buy anything to remember that in 1 month:

    Second-Gen Core i7 Processor Family
    Processor
    Base Clock
    Max. Turbo Clock
    Cores / Threads
    L3 Cache
    Memory
    InterfaceTDP
    Core i7-3960X
    *Unlocked
    3.3 GHz3.9 GHz6/1215 MB4-channel
    DDR3-1600
    LGA 2011130 W
    Core i7-3930K
    *Unlocked
    3.2 GHz3.8 GHz6/1212 MB4-channel
    DDR3-1600
    LGA 2011130 W

    will arrive.

    b.r.

    Cristobal Salas.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 13, 2011 6:16 PM   in reply to Martin Douglas

    I saw that preliminary review of the SB-E. Based on the benchmarks on a pre-production i7-3960X, expect top-notch performance in content creation apps such as PPro CS5.5 but relatively slow performance (compared to the CPUs' clock speed and price) in common mainstream apps. If the released production CPUs test out similar in performance, then that would make the "budget" i7-3820 much less attractive (slower than an i7-2600K in most apps, very limited if any overclockability). Part of the reason may be the large number of PCI-e lanes going unused (the benchmarks were performed with only a single GPU and no other PCI-e cards installed) - which in turn contribute to increased latency within the CPU itself. In other words, there is a lot more back-and-forth switching ((re)allocation of the PCI-e lanes) within the CPU with LGA 2011 than there has been with LGA 1155. And at the $300 price point I fail to see much value in going with a "new"-generation CPU using a high-end socket that doesn't perform all that much faster than the old i7-950 or i7-960 when both generations of "high-end" CPUs are at their stock speeds. At least the 950 and 960 can be overclocked significantly with a good CPU cooler installed (as can the 2600K). In fact, for $300 I'd take the 2600K or the forthcoming 2700K over the 3820 unless something changes before actual release.

     

    As it stands now, SB-E could be a killer CPU in everything including mainstream apps - but not in this initial pre-release stepping.

     

    As for the motherboards, most of the sub-$400 LGA 2011 motherboards will have only four DIMM slots. That limits the maximum cost-effective RAM capacity to 16GB. The only announced sub-$400 motherboard with eight DIMM slots comes from Intel itself. Aside from that Intel-branded motherboard (which is expected to be priced around $300), all of the other LGA 2011/X79 boards with eight DIMM slots will be priced in the $500 to $700 price range.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 13, 2011 10:06 PM   in reply to RjL190365

    "As for the motherboards, most of the sub-$400 LGA 2011 motherboards will have only four DIMM slots. That limits the maximum cost-effective RAM capacity to 16GB. The only announced sub-$400 motherboard with eight DIMM slots comes from Intel itself. Aside from that Intel-branded motherboard (which is expected to be priced around $300), all of the other LGA 2011/X79 boards with eight DIMM slots will be priced in the $500 to $700 price range."

     

    I dont believe the price will be that hight. And we have to remebember they willl have grafic output intagrate like in this example:

     

    x79.jpg

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 15, 2011 3:14 PM   in reply to Scott Chichelli
    there is now 8 GiG non-ecc ram available and at a decent price.

     

    I think we may have veeeeery different ideas on what constitutes a "decent price".

     

     

    You can get 16 GB of DDR3-1600 in four matched sticks for about $85.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233143

     

     

    But 32 GB of DDR3-1333 will cost you a whopping $860!  That's 10 times the cost for only double the capacity.  And at a slower speed to boot!

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820211564

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 15, 2011 7:01 PM   in reply to Jim Simon

    Jim,

     

    Part of the price premium for those 8GB sticks ($215 apiece, in dual-channel kits) is that the rated DIMM voltage is only 1.35V. As such, there is a price premium for memory that's rated to run at lower than the current reference 1.5V even for 2GB and 4GB sticks.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 16, 2011 9:11 AM   in reply to RjL190365

    I wasn't questioning the why of such a price difference, only the "reasonable" descriptive regarding their cost.  Regardless of what they used to cost, $865 for 32 GB is still waaaaay to expensive compared to the cost of 16GB.  When 32GB comes down to 2.5x the cost of 16GB (or less), then maybe you can use that description.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 16, 2011 9:17 AM   in reply to Jim Simon

    'Reasonable' depends on whether you are selling them or buying them. In the first case it is 'reasonable', in the latter case it is 'unreasonable'. You know where Scott stands.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 16, 2011 9:31 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Scott does both.  But from our perspective, he's more the seller.  If he wants to tell his supplier that it's a reasonable price, I'd not argue.  But that don't fly here.

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)