Having said that it's not a total wash, just try playing some games instead of worry about scores in a benchmark. The architecture of them is the same, adding a few hundred Mhz to the core isn't going alleviate the bottleneck present. No, getting a very slightly faster CPU from the same era wouldn't do much of anything except waste money. But since you already have what you have it's too late for that. What's the best way forward? Would replacing my existing E5-2665 CPUs with E5-2680 CPUs help? Should I see about returning the GeForce 1660 card and get a less powerful card? What video card would you recommend that wouldn't go to waste in this system? The inspiration for the gaming part of the build is based on this website: MAKE MY PRECISION T5600 IN TO A GAMING COMPUTER Is that website a total fraud? Thanks again for all your help and feedback, Robįor a cheap budget gaming build you would have been better off with a Ryzen 5 1600AF and a B450 board. I figured I'd throw a decent video card in it for some light gaming (Kingmaker, The Division, Deus Ex, etc.). I just purchased the Precision T5600 ($300), along with some parts ($45 32GB RAM, $90 500gb SSD), to build an inexpensive virtualization lab for my RHCE exam. Ramseyrt Hello, I appreciate your willingness to help and candor about my rig. The benchmark you posted from Superposition is in fact in line with what you should be expecting with your parts. Sorry this isn't what you want to hear but it's what's happening in your system. Even if they did populate all 16 cores available on your system, their low clock speed and low instructions executed per clock cycle in comparison to what modern CPUs can handle will still leave it far behind.
Your CPU instructions per clock are your real enemy here and compounded by them at a very low clock speed you are not going to see very good gains in gaming related tasks. They are going to be run on 2-6 cores at most that will be doing the heavy lifting. Games and game benchmarks are not going to fully populate 16 cores with tasks. What task manager is showing you is only how many cores are doing something that is all. Which it is, your CPUs instructions per clock cycle are far and away below what a modern CPU can handle. Just because task manager doesn't show your CPU being at 100% does not mean that your system isn't heavily bottlenecked. Wouldn't a slow/inadequate CPU be at 100% if it couldn't keep up with the video card? Thanks in advance, Rob I've never seen my CPU utilization go over maybe 5%. I've run Task Manager while running the performance benchmark programs.
Ramseyrt Hello, I've seen two comments so far on the performance of my CPU. Couple that with the fact that they are at 2.4Ghz and the fact that multi CPU systems historically do not perform in games or game benchmarks very well and I'd say you have the perfect storm of an underperforming system. They are Sandy Bridge 32nm dies which debuted in 2011 and the server variants in 2012. The Xeon CPus in your system are quite frankly ancient. Is there anything else I should be looking at? Thanks! Rob
The CPU is barely used, less than 10% at any time during the test. I reran the Passmark 3D Mark test again, this time with the Task Manager running so I could watch the CPU utilization values. The application did display the same 1920/4001 values during the test. I reran the Passmark 3D Mark test with the Afterburner application running in the background. I also performed the EVGA Precision X1 VF Curve Tuner Test which showed the same 1920Mhz CPU and 4001Mhz memory values. I just completed the MSI Afterburner Overclocking Scanner test and it shows my GPU clock running at 1920Mhz and a memory clock running at 4001Mhz. The Passmark score I'm getting for the CPU test is 14,000+. Ramseyrt Hello, My Dell Precision T5600 has two Xeon E5-2665 CPUs.
0 kommentar(er)
