What Processor to get (i7-4790K, i7-6700K, i7-5960X)?

[RussellinSacto]

Thanks Gary and Weebo,

 

I guess it isn't Roku...  I went to the GS605, and unplugged everything but power, my two Unraids, and my desktop (IP's already acquired)...  And tried copying files from each...  I can't get transfers any faster than 15MB/sec.  I have "factory made" CAT5 cables, but I'll start swapping them out with others.

 

The UnRaid Dashboard for both shows:  Network eth0 1000 Mb/s - full duplex

 

The commands you suggested I run say the same thing - not sure if there was something specific I should have been looking for, though?

 

My desktop computer (device manager) says it has an Intel 82566DM-2 Gigabit Network Connection.  Task Manager shows a Link Speed of 1Gbps.

 

Still experimenting.

 

Russell

[WeeboTech]

I can't get transfers any faster than 15MB/sec.

 

Attach a diagnostics zip archive.  I'm interested in seeing what drives you have.

 

If you have a cache drive, that would be the better benchmark.

What program are you using to benchmark these speeds?

[garycase]

...  I can't get transfers any faster than 15MB/sec.

 

The interesting thing is that any transfer above 12MB/sec is exceeding 100Mb/sec.  Normally when you have an issue where the speed has reverted to the 100Mb limit your transfers will be between 11 and 12 MB/s.

 

I'd definitely try a new set of cables (Cat-6 while you're at it).

 

... I have "factory made" CAT5 cables

 

Cat-5 or Cat-5e ??  If Cat-5, that's almost certainly why you're not getting higher speeds.

 

Regardless, try some new Cat-6 cables.

 

 

[RussellinSacto]

Okay, a lot of experimenting.

 

I have some CAT5's and some CAT5E's.  But I'm more than satisfied with the new results (I think I had one bad cable):

 

I get about 80MB/second copying a file down from my older UnRaid (4GB of RAM)

I get about 105MB/second copying a file down from my newer UnRaid (8GB of RAM)

(Not doing any "formal testing" - just clicking the "More Details" button on Windows 7 Copy Window)

 

So, that's some HUGE SUCCESS!  (I am not using cache drives on either system - not sure how to get the "diagnostics zip archive" if you are still interested - System Log?  or something else?)

 

But...  I'm trying to sync my most critical files (family photos, family videos, etc.).  I don't have a good solution for this.  I'm using FreeFileSync, but have two BIG issues:

 

1.  I set it to run nightly - but it doesn't seem to keep a database or anything - so it scans the full 4.5 TB of data for changes every time (adding a lot of drive wear, I suspect - this takes HOURS).

 

2.  It isn't fast - 10-12MB/second (presumably, the changed files are being downloaded to my Windows machine, then re-copied to the other UnRaid).  Does anyone have a better solution?  Maybe something that simply checks "Modified Date" to migrate changes - and then does this full type of scan maybe weekly/monthly?

 

(Tried BTSync - it seems to crash a lot)

 

Oh, and back to the original post question - if I keep my UnRaid functions separate from my desktop, does it make sense to invest in the i7-5960X (processor, RAM, Motherboard) - or does the 6700K make my future upgrade paths much more reasonable?

 

Thanks,

 

Russell

[WeeboTech]

Oh, and back to the original post question - if I keep my UnRaid functions separate from my desktop, does it make sense to invest in the i7-5960X (processor, RAM, Motherboard) - or does the 6700K make my future upgrade paths much more reasonable?

Hmm, let's see what I would do.

 

i7-4790K (Quad Core, 4.0 GHz) with 32GB of RAM $339

 

i7-6700K (Quad Core, 4.0 GHz Skylake) with 64 GB of RAM - $unknown

 

i7-5960X (Eight Core, 3.0 GHz) with 64 GB of RAM

Intel Core i7-5960X Haswell-E 8-Core 3.0GHz LGA 2011-v3 140W BX80648I75960X Desktop Processor - $1,049.99

  (no effin way) LOL!

 

Intel Core i7-5820K Haswell-E 6-Core 3.3GHz LGA  $389 - 64gb

22nm Haswell-E 140W

15MB L3 Cache

6 x 256KB L2 Cache

 

Now we're talking. It has huge cache and can support 64GB. 

I 'might' start with 32GB and upgrade if needed or go all out on this one.

 

 

and some light reading.

Haswell vs. Skylake-S: i7 4790K vs i7 6700K

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Haswell-vs-Skylake-S-i7-4790K-vs-i7-6700K-641/

[RussellinSacto]

My understanding is:

 

i7-6700K (Quad Core, 4.0 GHz Skylake) with 64 GB of RAM - $350 (MSRP) - and hopefully future processors will go into the motherboard you'd buy for this one.

 

Does that change your thoughts any?

 

Thanks,

 

Russell

[WeeboTech]

Probably the Skylake, but I would double check the 64GB notation.

From my 'quick' look, it supports 32GB. if that's enough for editing 25GB images, you're golden.

 

http://www.gamecrate.com/5-things-you-need-know-about-intels-new-skylake-processors/11499

 

Other then that a pair of fast SSD's or maybe 1 for OS and 2 smaller ones for scratch and paging in RAID 0.

 

While I've spent allot for processors in the past, It's usually never more then $500 per processor.

They depreciate fast unless they are specialty processors.

... then again, who am I to talk, my laptop(s) are used Dell m6600 that have $900 QXM processors.

(I do allot of virtualization and music)

 

For something like you are building, I would pay more for other parts to enhance things.

i.e. forgo the $1000 processor unless i just have stupid money to spare.

With my laptop, I had to be sure that it was a supported configuration and was designed to handle the heat.

otherwise I would have cheaped out a lil.

 

Keep in mind, large cache means allot.

Especially for virtualization or large data sets as it keeps it nearer to the processor and at a higher memory speed.

 

So for allot of context switching, I might choose the i7-5820K, for your video manipulation purposes, I think the i7-6700K is ideal and hits the sweet spot in terms of funding and performance.

I.E. unless you are 100% sure you will see a benefit from multiple threads in the software you use.

 

The linked article does imply a hefty performance update for the new processor.

[SSD]

Although the K processors are set up to be overclocked, the modern Intel processors have inferior thermal compound connecting the actual chip to the integrated heat shield (IHS). So even an excellent cooler will not effectively cool the chip. Overclockers remove the IHS and either replace the compound or literally attach the high-end cooler to the chip. The golden days of overclocking where you can cheaply increase your cpu speed by 40% or more are long past. Don't buy the K chips unless you are really into overclocking, because their performance benefits will be modest at best. Plus, on a machine focused on data integrity, raw CPU speed is not that important, and the chance that the overclock crashes your system occasionally just isn't worth it!

[WeeboTech]

These processors are spec'ed at 4ghz to turbo at 4.2 without overclocking.  That's nothing to sneeze at.

 

A few year back I paid the same prices for a 3.2Ghz processor.

 

Considering these will be used for image processing, I would get the highest affordable processor within reason.

 

You don't have to overclock them.

I have overclockable processors and I don't overclock, but they are top end processors that I'm never unhappy with.

 

While you'll probably hardly notice 3.3 ghz vs 4.0 ghz on the front end, There will probably be a measurable improvement in batch image processing times and/or virtualization.

Otherwise, I would have the same reservations about paying a premium for these processors.

 

From my understanding, that's the impetus to build the beastly desktop right?

 

If you can find a cheaper 4ghz processor that can go up to 64gb of ram.

I say let's see it and it's cost.

It may be worthwhile if it's available. My quick poke around did not find one. But I didn't search all that hard either.

[garycase]

My understanding is:

 

i7-6700K (Quad Core, 4.0 GHz Skylake) with 64 GB of RAM - $350 (MSRP) - and hopefully future processors will go into the motherboard you'd buy for this one.

 

The i7-6700 is an excellent choice, and while there will certainly be other processors that use Socket 1151, it's unlikely the higher-end hex and octa core Skylake-E CPU's will work in this socket ... they'll almost certainly use a high-end socket (a replacement for Socket 2011v3).

 

The Haswell-E CPU's ... either the hex-core i7-5820K or octa-core i7-5690X ... have higher performance then the 6700k, and have both higher bandwidth PCIe buses and faster quad-channel memory controllers; but I agree with Weebo that the 5690X is priced rather dearly.  The i7-5820K is a bargain by comparison (80% of the performance for 37% of the cost).

 

I tend to agree that the i7-6700k is the way to go for what you've outlined.  Note that although it does support 64GB of memory, there don't seem to be any shipping unbuffered 16GB DDR4 modules, so you'll be effectively limited to 8GB modules, which cuts your potential memory in half.    I'd be inclined to buy 2 8GB modules now, and then add a pair of 16GB modules when they become available ... giving you 48GB of RAM.

 

[Note that using a Socket 2011v3 board would have this same issue ... but since many of these boards have 8 RAM slots, you could get to 64GB using 8GB modules.]

 

Bottom line:  Either an i7-6700k system or a Socket 2011v3 with an i7-5820K would be an excellent choice.  Since this isn't going to be an all-in-one beast running as many VMs as you originally started discussing in this thread, the i7-6700k is probably the better value.

 

r.e. overclocking => In a word:  Don't 

 

 

[RussellinSacto]

Wow,

 

Thanks for all the input guys...  Damn, I thought I had read somewhere that the Skylake 6700K would support 64BG of RAM, but Intel disagrees - it's limited to 32GB:  http://ark.intel.com/products/88195/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-4_20-GHz

 

And Gary seems pretty sure that the socket (FCLGA1151) would not support future hex and octa-core processors (which makes sense).  I don't plan to overclock at all.  :-)

 

So, it sounds like 5820K if I feel compelled to 64GB of RAM, but the 6700K if 32GB should suffice.  :-)

 

Decisions.... decisions...

 

Thanks so much, guys...  Gotta think it over a bit.

 

Russell

 

[garycase]

I also thought I'd read that the 6700k would support 64GB, but the Ark site is the "Bible" for Intel's processors, so apparently 32GB it is.    Interesting that EVERY Socket 1151 motherboard currently available for these chips shows support for 64GB ... that's either (a) a mistake; or (b) there are going to be forthcoming SkyLake CPU's that support 64GB; or © indicates that Intel's Ark site has a mistake (!!)

 

 

[garycase]

Found this quote attributed to Intel in a betanews article from a couple weeks ago (I added the emphasis):

 

"Looking for the perfect processor to build your gaming rig? Want to game and stream at the same time? And want to edit your action videos and photos? We got you covered Intel is proud to announce its 6th Generation Intel Core Desktop processor family (codename Skylake). If it is performance you crave then these are the processors that you have been waiting for. The flagship desktop Intel Core i7-6700K desktop processor has a quadcore base frequency of 4GHz, 8MB of cache memory and support for up to 64GB in DDR4 RAM memory. Additionally, it is unlocked so that you can squeeze every last bit of performance out of it", says Intel.

 

Nevertheless, the Ark site is rarely wrong ... so a Socket 2011v3 setup is a better choice if you definitely want to go past 32GB of RAM.    Most of those boards actually support 128GB of RAM    [but the issue I mentioned earlier r.e. availability of 16GB modules would likely make 64GB a more reasonable target]

 

[RussellinSacto]

:-)

 

Why can't this be easy?

 

And then I went "Motherboard shopping" and I have no clue what to get.  And now it seems the 6700K MAY support 64GB of RAM.

 

I see some motherboards have 8 slots for Memory - I assume that's the way to go for 64GB of RAM?  (DDR4)

 

Maybe I need to wait until the 6700K is in the stores and then it'll be quite obvious if it accepts 64GB or not.

 

Russell

[garycase]

Some of the Socket 2011v3 boards have 8 slots for memory.

 

One simple rule when using unbuffered RAM => you'll have a more reliable memory subsystem if you only populate one module/channel (due to the signal degradation due to bus loading when you install 2/channel).  Two modules per channel WILL work -- the boards are clearly designed for that -- but sometimes that requires running the modules at a slightly lower clock speed, or with higher latency settings, or perhaps a modest bump in the voltage setting.

 

As a consequence, quad-channel boards (Socket 2011v3) not only have faster memory access (due to the quad channel controller), but also can support more RAM without encountering any bus loading issues.

 

DDR4 modules tend to mitigate this issue somewhat compared to previous generations, as they have much lower loading characteristics.    Still not as good as using buffered RAM (registered or FBDIMM modules), but you don't have much choice when buying consumer grade motherboards.

 

 

[garycase]

r.e. "motherboard shopping" ...

 

First, you need to decide which CPU you're going to use.

 

Then it's relatively simple:

 

If you're going to use a 6700k, you need a Socket 1151 motherboard.

 

If you're going to use the 5820k, you need a Socket 2011v3 motherboard.

 

Other than that, you just need to look at the features of the boards (how many memory sockets; how many expansions slots; etc.)

 

[garycase]

Just to muddy the waters a bit ...

 

... if you really want the ability to use prodigious amounts of memory without any bus loading concerns, you could always use a Xeon E5-1650v3, which slightly outperforms the 5820k, and a server motherboard to support it, which would support registered RAM with ECC.

 

It would, however, bump up the costs by a few hundred $$

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117499

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA24G3435488

[RussellinSacto]

Gosh this is tough...  Because of a recent disk loss, I'm moving a TON of files around and it all seems so slow...

 

Now I'm wondering if the "All in One" with VMs is really the right path afterall?  Some of the software I like (specifically a lesser known Photo software called Daminion) would really like to have "Local Files" to work quickly.

 

I've got posts on their forums to see if 75MB/sec read will give my smooth performance.

 

That said...  Gary, I think I like where you are headed...  kindof a sweet spot between the 6700K and the 5960X.  I think the extra RAM would really be helpful.  I love the 10 SATA controllers, and SuperMicro has been good to me with my UnRaids so far (running one since 2007).

 

Would this be UnRaid compatible too, if I end up going that route someday down the road?  If I don't merge, I'll need a new case, power supply, etc. - since my current desktop is a proprietary Dell.

 

Thanks,

 

Russell

[garycase]

Indeed ... that server would be a VERY nice all-in-one box.    You could run ESXi with UnRAID as a guest and other VM's as needed;  or you could run UnRAID natively and let it host the VMs.

 

And you can install as much as 512GB of memory    [Although 8 64GB LRDIMM's would cost a prodigious amount of $$  ]    ... 128GB or perhaps 256GB is a far more reasonable target, however -- at least at current memory prices.

 

With 64GB of RAM, it could easily host everything you've mentioned, and assuming you used 16GB RAM modules it'd still be expandable if you wanted to double (or more) the RAM.    ... and with buffered ECC modules, the memory subsystem would be exceptionally reliable.

 

 

 

 

 

[RussellinSacto]

Hi Gary,

 

Darn, the processor spec looks like it only supports 256GB of RAM (http://ark.intel.com/products/64601/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-1650-12M-Cache-3_20-GHz-0_0-GTs-Intel-QPI)...  so I won't have to spend the prodigious amount of $$$. 

 

I like the all in one solution - that'd save me some money if I can reuse my case, power supply, etc.

 

So...  I've not done anything significant with VMs...  Do you suggest ESXi with UnRaid as a guest?  or UnRaid as the Host to other guests?  (All guests would be Windows based - 7 or 10, presumably).

 

I peeked at the prices (2x32GB about $1,100), while 4x16GB is about $650.  I don't think the direct upgrade path is worth that steep price difference.  I also don't know about ECC, DDRs, and the speeds.  I'm thinking of starting with 64GB of RAM.  What should I buy for the processor/motherboard (love the onboard USB for the flash inside the box!) you've suggested?  (Part number specific would be awesome.)

 

And while you're the guru, how do I cool this bad boy (processor)? 

 

How much juice do I need to run this thing with 12 SATA drives?  I'm running a 650 watt right (Corsair) now; hoping that's enough.  I don't play video games - is there enough onboard video to be useful - or do I need a video card?

 

Sorry for all the questions.

 

Thanks,

 

Russell

 

[garycase]

A shame it "only" supports 256GB 

 

I agree, however, that at current prices it makes more sense to go with 4 x 16GB modules.  64GB is almost certainly enough for everything you'll want to do ... and even if not, you can double the RAM with another 4 16GB modules (or triple it with 4 32GB modules if the prices have dropped by the time you're thinking about doing that).

 

The Intel stock coolers are fine as long as you're not overclocking -- and I certainly would NOT do that with a high-end CPU like this, which has PLENTY of "oomph" without any additional help.    These are VERY efficient chips ... despite the 140w TDP they normally use FAR less than that -- it's just there if you need it !!  (This chip can run circles around a 4790k)

 

Your 650w Corsair has plenty of power for this setup with 10 drives as long as it has an 8-pin CPU auxiliary power connection (I'm pretty sure it does -- probably split into 4+4 so it works with 4-pin sockets).

 

As for whether it's better to run UnRAID v6 natively and use it's built-in hypervisor;  or run UnRAID as a client OS under ESXi;  I can only say there's no clear "better" way to do it.

 

If you run UnRAID as a client under ESXi, then reconfiguring UnRAID, rebooting  it; etc. won't have any impact on your other VM's.    To me this is a very nice advantage.  There have been a few issues with UnRAID v6 as an ESXi client (read the threads on this) ... but nothing significant, and I think they've pretty much been resolved.

 

I don't do either at the moment ... I have 3 UnRAID boxes (one is a backup of the other 2); and run all of my VMs on my primary desktop under VMware Workstation.  I DO plan to build another system later this fall(probably using the exact motherboard and CPU I just suggested by the way)  to move all my VMs to and possibly one of my servers.  I'm leaning towards the ESXi setup; but will likely try it both ways for a bit before committing to that (I presume you know ESXi is free for personal use).

 

r.e. ECC => I presume you know that means the memory system can correct single bit errors (and detect others) ... so you'll KNOW about any memory errors instead of having to isolate them after your system starts having quirky errors or crashes.    You can get unbuffered ECC modules for some motherboards (typically entry-level server boards that use E3 Xeons) ... but then you still have bus loading issues when you install a lot of modules (but at least you're less likely to get errors).    But with registered modules, the buffers effectively eliminate all bus loading concerns, so with both the buffer and ECC the memory subsystem is VERY rock-solid.    If you're not familiar with the signal degradation caused by loading the bus, look at Item #10 here:  http://www.xlrq.com/stacks/corsair/153707/index.html

 

 

 

 

 

[RussellinSacto]

Awesome Gary.

 

So, exactly what RAM donyou suggest?  :-)

 

Russell

[garycase]

Awesome Gary.

 

So, exactly what RAM donyou suggest?  :-)

 

Russell

 

Always a tough call ... but if I was buying today I'd probably buy this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820242019

 

[RussellinSacto]

Thank you sir.

 

Placing an order this coming weekend (when I will finally have time).

 

Any other advice? 

 

I'm watching this video about ESXI (

), and I'm not sure which to have as the parent - ESXI or Unraid.

 

What do you suggest for beginners?  :-)

 

Russell

[garycase]

I don't think it matters.    There's a learning curve for your first few VM's, but then it's very simple either way.

 

It's probably a bit simpler to just install UnRAID v6 natively -- that way you've at least got your UnRAID server running;  but I'd take the time to do it both ways and decide for yourself.