- 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)