In a bit of pickle, g. I can't decide what would be better for gaming and general use.
Building a comp for a friend for their birthday and I can't decide whether to pick up two Xeon x5670's and put them in a dual socket motherboard or just give them my i7-3770k build and I take the Xeon one.
Those are the two processors i'm working with right now... with just between those two processors what do you think or what would you do?
>tldr; Choose between dual Xeon x5670's or an i7-3770k for gaming and general use.
For gaming the 3770k will be better because of the higher single core performance
Unless your friend plans on doing a shit ton of rendering or encoding or similar parralelized task, give him the 3770k.
>>55307275
Do games generally not use lots of cores? And yes, video editing might be part of it, but gaming first.
How much of a difference would it be as far as performance goes in game.
>>55307361
well the x5670 is a 32nm gulftown part, essentially a first generation i7-970, but clocked a little slower.
So it's nearing 7 years old and 3 generations worth of IPC improvements from the 3770k.
At identical clock speed the X5670 will be ~25-40% slower depending on exactly what you're doing. However, the 3770k is clocked ~500MHz higher, so it's got another ~10-15% performance increase over the X5670.
So while the 3770k is only a 4 core/8 thread CPU, it's per core performance should be a good 30-50% greater than the Xeon.
And most games only use 2-4 cores.
>>55307458
Ah.
Overall as time passes, what do you think will be the better of the two.
I think im falling for the "muh more cores" meme and thats why Im torn between the two. You'd think there would be more cores in cpu's but I understand that it is harder to write code that is optimized for more cores over say 1 or 2.
>>55307559
For the long term the 3770k. By the time MOAR COARS is really a concern the X5670 will be too outdated anyway. The single core performance is simply lacking.
>>55307582
So what about as far as having a million tabs open and running a tone of shit at once. Which would preform better?
>>55307648
The 3770k because unless you're doing something stupid with the browser you're never going to end up taxing 12 cores.
I mean open up 3 or 4 4k youtube streams and sure, that dual Xeon will do better than the 3770k because 4k decoding takes a dickload of CPU power. But for any sort of normal use the 3770k is going to be an all around better option 99 times out of 100.
>>55307275
from >>51971506
> /g/ is NOT your personal tech support team or personal consumer review site.
>>55307782
I'm about to get into video editing soon, I'm also going to try and run a fuk tone of monitors at once, do multiple things with different drives, along with trying to run games.
Would the 3770k still out preform the dual x5670's in this 'what if' sort of setup?
>>55307913
it would really depend what you're doing. If you're really going to be doing encoding while gaming and other things all at once, the dual xeons will be better because they have more cores and can schedule more things at once and not slow down the other tasks. However, peak single core performance will still be lower than the 3770k so gaming will take a performance hit in anything that is CPU bound, but the majority of games are GPU bound anyway, so it shouldnt make a HUGE difference most of the time.
The biggest concern with that hypothetical scenario is making sure your programs are only using the cores you want them to use and not leaving some cores unused or similar.
>>55308022
Makes sense.
Thanks, anon. I was just wanted another persons opinion.
If anyone else wants to put in, that'd be nice, otherwise let the thread die.
There is no single game out there which will be bottlenecked by a X5670.
Additionally, plenty of games take advantage of more than 4 cores. That whole myth needs to kick the bucket.
>>55309886
>plenty of games take advantage of more than 4 cores
Show me more than a single game that will use more than 8 threads (since the 3770k is a 4 core 8 thread CPU)
The x5670 is a 6 core 12 thread, and two of them makes 12 cores and 24 threads. No game will take advantage of that.
And you KNOW the vast majority of games rely on single core performance, and the 3770k has a good 30% higher single core performance, before OCing, and you can OC the 3770k a good deal.
So sure, you might find one or two games that are actually well threaded, but the other 98 games out of 100 are going to be better on the 3770k.
No point in buying a xeon unless you're doing something requiring lots of parallelization. The supercomputer I work with has a bunch of xeon cores... but there's no reason to have even one for gaming.
>>55310236
Only reason I''m getting them is because the sellers is only charging $50 for both.
>>55307275
You're really not going to make use of the Xeon. Even if the games use all of the cores, they won't be fully utillized. Xeon are designed for high throughput, they accomplish many tasks fairly quickly. Games only have a limited amount of tasks that need to be finiahed very quickly; requiring single core performance. For video editing, the gpu will do most of the work assuming good video editing software.
I doubt you'll see much performance loss either way. Both should get the job done as GPUs take over much of the work.
>>55312723
Thanks for the advice, anon.
