X5650 Specs

[Myra Krallman]

Ithink it would be a good idea for sure, however, "mandatory" would suggest it's not already posted somewhere important, but I'm unaware of any hardware that meets the minimum spec, as laid out by DCS, that doesn't have AVX abilities.

Do you have a CPU that meets or exceeds these specs, but doesn't have AVX support?

Personally I don't have any problems but a member of the CheckSix forum uses an i7 860 which doesn't support avx instructions. It's true that this processor is old, but so far he hasn't had any problems with the other DCS modules.

Yes, my friend just posted in another thread detailing the exact same problem, he owns a 2010, Intel Xeon Processor X5650 , 6 core, 12 thread. I would HARDLY call that a "bad" CPU , on paper it has more Cores / Threads than my i7- 7700k from 2018. I understand it's a 13-year-old cpu, but he can run EVERY other module just fine, and whilst I'm on board with modernizing the DCS platform, I agree with the OP that they should DEFINITELY, absolutely, unequivocally be advertised with a warning, and instructions to verify your CPU meets spec. I think a refund would be appropriate on a limited-case basis for these individuals. They literally have a digital paperweight.

Neither would I, but since CPU power doubles every 18 months (Thank you Gordon Moore) and that CPU is 13 years old, or 8.6 CPU-doubling generations ago if you prefer, That's a heavy ask of a CPU from that generation, and while the Xeon is almost certainly faster at many things than an i-3 or even some i-5's of that era, that's not what the spec requires you to have. A fast Xeon is not a compatible faster version of an i-3.

Terrible analogy time... you have a mini and a dumptruck. The spec calls for a mini, but you argue your dumptruck should be fine, since it does everything the mini can do... until you come to the part where there's a tunnel that's only 5ft high.. and now you know why the spec is the mini... in this analogy, AVX=tunnel with 5ft ceiling.

But again, I agree with you, there *should* be a note, and I think until that note gets put up, it should be refunded if requested. I remain at, it's a very good idea, but I don't see it as mandatory, I also don't think that as a percentage, there's very many DCS players running with 13 year old gear that are going to have this problem, but I don't know that to be true (but I'm still pretty sure ).

hardware requirements need to be more detailed than just "i3 at 2.8 ghz", thats extremely vague. also its a common practice for games or multimedia software to use optional instruction set extensions only when available on that particular pc, defaulting to standard amd64 instructions when not available.

If you look at the specs of the first ever i3 with a clock speed above 2.8Ghz, you'll stumble upon i3-530, which has no AVX instructionsset on-board. From what I found, AVX on those desktop processors was introduced with the release of the i3-2120. With the current hardware from the last 5 years or so AVX should never be an issue, but the minimum specs should at least state the minimum requirements more clear than now.

However, the second half of your statement that computational power grows woefully little, well... that's just wrong. Either way, the distinction is completely unrelated to the discussion at hand. For whatever reason a 13 year old CPU that was NEVER the spec for this is not surprising to have problems, and I suspect it impacts extremely few people... and finally, as I've said every time, I still think it would be a good idea to add that note about AVX.

And linking a forum post from a 3 year old article talking about even older Celerons and Pentiums (also which pretty much no one uses, esp here) doesn't do much to sway anything, ok, so there's 2% edge cases, instead of 1%.. still minor minor, and still should be mentioned, and still should be refunded until they do mention it, when requested.

unless your software paralellizes the load equally over more than 12 threads (rare and never seen in games), then performance only doubled... in 6 years. (btw less than doubled in single core). for 6 years, thats woefully little in my book.

"unless" is a qualifier that is just disingenuous. It has extra capability. If you wanna state "if you take out the extra capabilities, there are no extra capabilities." then I agree with you, otherwise, that's a bit of a tilt in your measuring system... Older CPU's can't do it, newer ones can.

I also see that you're comparing AMD cpu's, which is legit, however, I was referring specifically to Intel CPU's, and I'm sure there's an edge case or two that you could find there too, but it's definitely not the norm. I'm not a fan of AMD so I can't claim anything about those chips.

"less than doubled in single core" - true, but again, you neglect to mention that because of increased transistor count (Hi Gord!) again, there's far more cores on the same chip... you can't just dismiss that. They're more powerful... analogy... "Ya, sure, that V8 is more powerful than my V4, but if you take away 4 cylinders, it's not much more at all, I'd call it woefully little." I just can't personally get there as that being a valid argument.

Thanks for explaining your methodology anyway though, but we've definitely wandered off-topic, and well into Nerdville, which is ok, cuz that's where I live at work, but probably best not to continue cluttering this thread.

The server that I have is using E5504 CPUs but will I be able to upgrade to any CPU that is using a LGA1366 socket? All from a low wattage L5640 all the way to the 6 core, high wattage versions like an X5650? (If cooling and power is adequate ofcause).Is there any limitation with powerregulators and chipset (Intel 5500).

As far as RAM, I would not bother with investing so much effort and money into such a low-end server. However, if you really need 384GB of RAM, you should be looking at higher-end products within the product line. That's where the cooling, power and chassis design are optimized for higher specs. If you aren't willing to do that, there's no immediate harm to trying the third-party RAM upgrade.

3a8082e126