Gadgetory

- Today is the conclusion part three of three, of the 1680 v2 Xeon, all the way back from 2013 if you guys haven't seen part one or part two where we go over gaming numbers and then input lag I'll put the links in the description below for you, but today is the productivity numbers, and essentially what we've done with these three CPUs is we've overclocked them to their max limits on water and air. Overclocks at least in a 25 degree ambient environment where I can get them stable and with that said lets get right on into these results. ♪ Completely ♪ ♪ I wish that I was a madman ♪ ♪ Then maybe I would ♪ - Welcome back to Tech YES City and the first result I'm gonna throw up for you guys is the Premiere Pro 24 minute video file it is a 4k video file; 25 mega bits per second, 100 mega bits per second max and we are just rendering this out with no quick sync enabled. So the 9900k will have access to that quick sync encoding, if you wish to use that so that is one benefit. But we're just gonna compare the eight cores versus the eight cores versus the eight cores with raw CPU performance, and at five gigahertz the 9900k did come out on top in this battle here. The Xeon 1680 v2 and also the Ryzen 2700X, were in similar ballparks here, scoring a little over the 26 minute mark. But honestly these final render times for me personally, at least when I press that final render button, it's like a tea break where I can go have some time off. So it's not that important to me, actually more importantly was in the previous video where we are looking at the input delays while I'm working, in terms of manual interaction and also cutting files. Now move on to 7-Zip, if you wish to compress or decompress the files all day. Then the good news here is that all three of these CPUs will do a phenomenal job. The AMD 2700X and also the 9900k will do decompressing better than the 1680 v2, but the 1680 v2 will do compressing better than both these counterparts. And I do believe this has to do with the quad channel memory configuration, despite it still having only the speeds of 1600 megahertz versus 3600 megahertz on both the AMD and Intel 2018 variants. But regardless it is pretty sweet to see that 1680 v2 to score a victory over the 9900k. Next up in the suit however the 9900k was a bit angry from the 7-Zip results so it decided to give the 1680 v2 a bit of a kidney shot and then throw V-Ray at it. Now I'm pretty sure this does utilize Avx2 instructions, because the V-Ray numbers showed the 1680 v2 falling clearly behind both the 9900k, which came out first, then the 2700X which is coming close to the 9900k. It was clearly lagging behind in this benchmark, and then moving over to the Corona benchmark the 1680 v2 falling slightly behind the Ryzen 7 2700X and then the 9900k coming out ahead with one minute and 37 seconds. Moving over to HandBrake now, a program used to make video files either larger or bigger or upscale or downscale, and this has some very good real world uses, with a 24 minute 4K file downscaled to 1080p, also reduced in size, this took around 30 minutes and three seconds on the 9900k. Moving on over now to the 1680 v2 15 minutes and 47 seconds and then on the Ryzen 7 2700X 16 minutes and two seconds. So pretty similar across the board, and then next up here we have everybody's favorite, Cinebench, and we saw the Ryzen 7 2700X coming out with a big 1843 points single score of 174. Beating that of the 1680 v2 both on the multi and single threaded test however still falling behind the 9900k with its 2145 and 217 on the single, and then next up we have Geekbench multi, which tests a lot of different things, after using this benchmark I guess it's really a all around usage if you're doing many different things on your computer, and here we saw the 9900k score 6395 point single 33988 contrast that to the 1680 v2 that scored 4622 and 30478, and then we're looking at the Ryzen 7 2700X 5002 and then 28487. So a little bit of a punch on there between the 1680 v2 and the Ryzen 7 2700X, the AMD solution winning the single core and then the 1680 v2 winning the multi core. And then last up here we have Time Spy Extreme, coming in with a physics score for the 9900k of 5317, looking at the AMD solution that got 3885 and then the poor Xeon got 3664. However, I did have to drop the 2080 Ti's power limit when I tested the poor little Xeon, because the actual whole system just clunked out while we were doing this benchmark. So in other words the 2 PCIE cables on the power supply couldn't feed the graphics card enough power. Anyway, the conclusion with part three is pretty straight forward. I believe all of these CPUs are more than capable of doing any sort of work you wish to throw at it. Whether it be Premiere Pro, whether it be encoding videos with HandBrake, or rendering or making music or decompressing files or compressing 'em. They all do a phenomenal job in 2018, and when it comes down to it if I change my 1680 v2 over to a 9900k, I'm really not going to see much benefit at all, in fact, if you look at part two of this series we even lose a little bit out in input lag with the 1680 v2 overall did win those benchmarks. But I guess in closing this video out, I've been called many of things on Twitter or in the comments section about hey, you're a dumpster diver you should get back to the dumpster, and you know use that old Xeon hardware, it's outdated, it's crap, and I guess there's arguments, sort of I guess now that this Xeon sort of, which been in my main rig for quite a while now, now that it's sort of the benchmarks have come out I guess people are left scratching their head and they're saying wow, a CPU from 2013 is still that good in 2018. So, I guess those people have been silenced in ways because I guess they don't know how to counteract the argument except for oh the price now, suddenly this price performance argument comes out of no where, and I've got twp of those Xeons for under $400, plus one which is in use of the video editor's rig, and another one which is in my main rig now, which does phenomenally well for what it is. At the end of the day I love jumping into the BIOS having all these extra voltages that are needed in order to get a 4.6 gigahertz overclock out of the Xeon, as opposed to the new school stuff which is literally three different settings. For me it's exciting, for me it represents what overclocking used to be about as opposed to fast forwarding to 2018 where it's all pushed to the max envelope, as I said in part one where your CPUs are coming out more aggressively clocked, closer to those limits than they've ever been before. And so the value of overclocking really is diminishing this represents the best value when it comes to over clocking those CPUs and getting the most performance out of them and yes before we end this video Ryzen is phenomenal value for money, I haven't heard someone arguing against that, and this is not the whole point of this series. Whole point of this series was to take technology that existed in 2013 and compare it to technology in 2018 and show that there really isn't a difference for someone like me and my workflow and I guess a lot of other people out there who are single end power users, and of course the prices of these Xeons have gone up, and now if you're in the market for a 1680 v2 unfortunately they've gone up in price and with that they are now, I would consider them an exotic the one that is still very, very contemporary in 2018 especially if you just want something different. Anyway guys I hope you enjoyed today's video and also the three part series, you guys have been requesting this one for a while and I hope I delivered for you and of course I cannot wait for the Ryzen 3000 series announcements at CES. I'm just like any other tech enthusiasts out there I want innovation, I want better products, I'm hungry for it and I hope you're hungry for the next video. Peace out for now, bye. (upbeat electronic music)