F5F Stay Refreshed Hardware Desktop The distinctions among X58 models L, E, X, and W Xeons lie in their features and performance variations.

The distinctions among X58 models L, E, X, and W Xeons lie in their features and performance variations.

The distinctions among X58 models L, E, X, and W Xeons lie in their features and performance variations.

Pages (2): 1 2 Next
R
rooster518
Junior Member
12
09-20-2016, 06:51 AM
#1
You're curious about the differences between various Xeon models. These processors vary in core count, clock speeds, and performance characteristics. Overclocking your X5660 to achieve 4.3g at 1.288v with three cores gives you a decent result, especially since the other cores perform similarly. The best cores can reach around 4.5g at about 1.38v, but the rest are more average.

Switching to a different Xeon series could improve core frequency and uncore overclocking potential. The main differences lie in RAM support, power efficiency, and thermal management. For example, the E5649 is similar in price to the X5650 but offers a 10x multiplier boost, making it a good value for performance.

Xeons generally have more robust cooling solutions compared to some Xeons, which helps manage heat better at higher frequencies. However, as you noted, even with strong cooling, temperatures can rise quickly if core speeds are pushed too high. It's important to balance clock speeds with thermal stability.

If you're looking for better core and uncore performance, consider models with higher base clocks and better thermal design. Always test under realistic workloads to see how they behave in practice.
R
rooster518
09-20-2016, 06:51 AM #1

You're curious about the differences between various Xeon models. These processors vary in core count, clock speeds, and performance characteristics. Overclocking your X5660 to achieve 4.3g at 1.288v with three cores gives you a decent result, especially since the other cores perform similarly. The best cores can reach around 4.5g at about 1.38v, but the rest are more average.

Switching to a different Xeon series could improve core frequency and uncore overclocking potential. The main differences lie in RAM support, power efficiency, and thermal management. For example, the E5649 is similar in price to the X5650 but offers a 10x multiplier boost, making it a good value for performance.

Xeons generally have more robust cooling solutions compared to some Xeons, which helps manage heat better at higher frequencies. However, as you noted, even with strong cooling, temperatures can rise quickly if core speeds are pushed too high. It's important to balance clock speeds with thermal stability.

If you're looking for better core and uncore performance, consider models with higher base clocks and better thermal design. Always test under realistic workloads to see how they behave in practice.

P
PindaPotje009
Junior Member
33
09-20-2016, 01:12 PM
#2
These components are designed for standard use rather than high-end overclocking. L represents low power mode, E signifies efficiency-focused performance—typically around 80W TDP or less. X indicates a performance-oriented design with higher TDP, usually above 95W. W denotes workstation single socket compatibility, similar to the E/X line, but featuring only one QPI connection. Generally, the X models offer the most optimal binning.
P
PindaPotje009
09-20-2016, 01:12 PM #2

These components are designed for standard use rather than high-end overclocking. L represents low power mode, E signifies efficiency-focused performance—typically around 80W TDP or less. X indicates a performance-oriented design with higher TDP, usually above 95W. W denotes workstation single socket compatibility, similar to the E/X line, but featuring only one QPI connection. Generally, the X models offer the most optimal binning.

R
ricby
Senior Member
681
09-27-2016, 02:13 PM
#3
Assuming I can keep my CPU under 80°C, it should handle 4.3GHz at about 1.3V, considering the slowest core on this chip. It looks like there’s a point where gains slow down—around 4.3GHz, where two of the top cores need only ~0.08V to reach 4.4GHz and another ~0.08V for 4.5GHz. On the E5-1750 I’ve heard the binning is great because it has low power density, while the E5450 vs X5450 are very similar but the X5450 has a higher density. Maybe I’ll grab an EXEON just to test if they offer solid binning too.
R
ricby
09-27-2016, 02:13 PM #3

Assuming I can keep my CPU under 80°C, it should handle 4.3GHz at about 1.3V, considering the slowest core on this chip. It looks like there’s a point where gains slow down—around 4.3GHz, where two of the top cores need only ~0.08V to reach 4.4GHz and another ~0.08V for 4.5GHz. On the E5-1750 I’ve heard the binning is great because it has low power density, while the E5450 vs X5450 are very similar but the X5450 has a higher density. Maybe I’ll grab an EXEON just to test if they offer solid binning too.

C
Cherrie24
Member
179
10-07-2016, 10:33 AM
#4
It’s worth testing the E5649 since it offers the smallest TDP among six cores in that category.
C
Cherrie24
10-07-2016, 10:33 AM #4

It’s worth testing the E5649 since it offers the smallest TDP among six cores in that category.

M
MagicDragon50
Junior Member
12
10-07-2016, 11:31 AM
#5
Well there is the l5645 a bin lower than it but for all i know they heat up like crazy when clocked high so they become garbage
M
MagicDragon50
10-07-2016, 11:31 AM #5

Well there is the l5645 a bin lower than it but for all i know they heat up like crazy when clocked high so they become garbage

J
Jake_TheDoge
Member
207
10-20-2016, 06:01 PM
#6
For X58 performance, look for the most effective cooling solutions available. LGMRT, TS140P, and D15 are top choices, though D14 and Thermalrights' fire-breathing X58 model stand out as particularly strong. I didn’t own a D15, but had a D14 which performed well with that cooler.
J
Jake_TheDoge
10-20-2016, 06:01 PM #6

For X58 performance, look for the most effective cooling solutions available. LGMRT, TS140P, and D15 are top choices, though D14 and Thermalrights' fire-breathing X58 model stand out as particularly strong. I didn’t own a D15, but had a D14 which performed well with that cooler.

D
DJrg82
Member
78
10-30-2016, 08:13 PM
#7
I’ve experienced strong results with the X58 W series Xeons. The W3670 performs well on boards that support BCLK overclocking. For tightly controlled Dell systems, you can boost the W3680 or W3690 multipliers. These are open processors that closely match the Core i7-980X and Core i7-990X. You achieve an ultra-fast CPU at a more affordable cost—just increase voltage and the W3670 can handle Cinebench stably without problems, maintaining solid performance. Running at 4700 MHz is preferable to 5000 MHz. The extra investment in a W3670 versus the X5660 unlocks a higher maximum multiplier for additional speed when you supply ample voltage. The updated 32nm X58 models also run significantly cooler than their earlier 45nm predecessors.
D
DJrg82
10-30-2016, 08:13 PM #7

I’ve experienced strong results with the X58 W series Xeons. The W3670 performs well on boards that support BCLK overclocking. For tightly controlled Dell systems, you can boost the W3680 or W3690 multipliers. These are open processors that closely match the Core i7-980X and Core i7-990X. You achieve an ultra-fast CPU at a more affordable cost—just increase voltage and the W3670 can handle Cinebench stably without problems, maintaining solid performance. Running at 4700 MHz is preferable to 5000 MHz. The extra investment in a W3670 versus the X5660 unlocks a higher maximum multiplier for additional speed when you supply ample voltage. The updated 32nm X58 models also run significantly cooler than their earlier 45nm predecessors.

Z
ZebraZack
Member
53
11-01-2016, 09:04 AM
#8
I'm already stuck in a loop, missing most components except the pump since it seems insufficient even though this setup is essentially 480mm square.
Z
ZebraZack
11-01-2016, 09:04 AM #8

I'm already stuck in a loop, missing most components except the pump since it seems insufficient even though this setup is essentially 480mm square.

E
elorable
Member
72
11-04-2016, 09:20 PM
#9
Heheh... the box lists 130w, but actually hitting 300w+ is pretty doable in the right conditions. My old x5690 was an E.S., maybe just a bit off. It handled up to 1.4v for 4400 and scaled to 4800 at 1.6v. I usually kept the last 200MHz for colder months.
E
elorable
11-04-2016, 09:20 PM #9

Heheh... the box lists 130w, but actually hitting 300w+ is pretty doable in the right conditions. My old x5690 was an E.S., maybe just a bit off. It handled up to 1.4v for 4400 and scaled to 4800 at 1.6v. I usually kept the last 200MHz for colder months.

F
Fungus12
Member
210
11-05-2016, 12:43 AM
#10
These xeons seem similar to the i9, but they only match the performance of first-gen Ryzen. Once I fix my loop, things should improve quickly unless I upgrade to 4.3G. If that’s not possible, I’ll stick with 2x3 or 4x2 configurations for decent usability and light gaming. I’m okay with lighter titles and won’t push myself into heavier games for now.
F
Fungus12
11-05-2016, 12:43 AM #10

These xeons seem similar to the i9, but they only match the performance of first-gen Ryzen. Once I fix my loop, things should improve quickly unless I upgrade to 4.3G. If that’s not possible, I’ll stick with 2x3 or 4x2 configurations for decent usability and light gaming. I’m okay with lighter titles and won’t push myself into heavier games for now.

Pages (2): 1 2 Next