Summary

• Opting for a budget Xeon setup may work for gaming at high resolutions, as GPUs take precedence over processors in performance.
• Server CPUs may hinder performance in esports titles, as they that prioritize single-core power and high refresh rates.
• While they are not ideal for high refresh rate gaming, Xeon systems can deliver playable FPS at high resolutions with powerful GPUs.

There is no denying that server-grade hardware provides top-tier performance when it comes to virtualization-heavy tasks. However, gaming is one field where multi-core Xeon and Epyc CPUs tend to fumble. To put that into perspective, even the most expensive server processor will easily lose to a budget-friendly mainstream processor when it comes to gaming.

But with old Xeon chips available at bargain prices, it’s quite tantalizing to pick one up. Having recently purchased a dual-Xeon system for my home lab, I decided to test it out with some of the most graphically demanding games in my library. If you’re curious, here’s a log of all my observations.

The test bench

Before I post the images and benchmark tables, I’d like to go over the specifications of my test bench. Since we’re testing budget-grade processors, I performed all my tests on a cheap X99 motherboard armed with two Intel Xeon E5-2650 v4 processors, with each CPU running at stock settings. RAM-wise, I used two 32GBs of ECC-registered DDR4 memory sticks clocked at 2400MHz in dual-channel mode, though in hindsight, I should have gone for a quad-channel configuration for the best performance. For those residing in the US, you should be able to grab a similar system for well under $250.

With that out of the way, it’s time to address the elephant in the room: the GPU. For the initial round of tests, I used my old GTX 1080, which still delivers solid frame rates at 1080p and can even hold its own at 1440p. Since the project would be incomplete if I only used an eight-year-old GPU, I decided to go with my RTX 3080 Ti for the second wave of tests. It’s no RTX 4090 by any means, but I believe it should serve as a decent stand-in for a high-end current-gen graphics card. I was also tempted to give my Intel Arc A750 a shot, but decided against it as my X99 mobo doesn’t support Resizeable BAR, and without this setting enabled, the Alchemist family is massively crippled on the performance front. If you're wondering about the PSU, I used my 1000W Corsair RM1000e PSU to provide maximum power to the test bench.

As for the games, I decided to test five of the most realistic-looking titles in my library: Armored Core VI: Fires of Rubicon, Baldur’s Gate 3, Cyberpunk 2077, Elden Ring, and Red Dead Redemption 2. I used the highest possible settings in almost every game, and tested all the titles twice on each GPU: once at 1080p and again at 4K.

Red Dead Redemption 2 would constantly crash if I set the Volumetric Fog, Screen Space Reflections, and other demanding effects to Ultra on my GTX 1080, so I had to compromise and turn them down to Medium/High.

To avoid skewing the results any further, I kept the DLSS and ray-tracing settings disabled at all times. Finally, rather than rely on an in-game benchmarking tool, I played every title for a couple of minutes to get a more precise reading of the GPU usage and FPS.

Unsurprisingly, the GTX 1080 was the deadweight at 4K

Though the Xeon processors were the bottleneck at 1080p

For the first round of tests involving the GTX 1080, the frame rates were more-or-less what you’d expect from a server PC running an old GPU. At 4K, the games could barely be called playable, with the GPU usage on all titles staying at the 100% threshold, This meant the system was getting held back by the graphics card. Sure, I might have gotten slightly better frame rates on a mainstream processor, but a difference of 4–5 FPS doesn’t mean a lot when you’re gaming (if you can even call it that) at under 20 FPS.

However, the situation was radically different once I’d turned down the resolution to 1080p. In most titles barring Red Dead Redemption 2 and Cyberpunk 2077, the GPU utilization had dropped from 100%, meaning the 24-core, 48-thread processors were now the bottleneck instead of the GPU.

In Baldur’s Gate 3, Armored Core VI: Fires of Rubicon, and Elden Ring, the performance was clearly held back by the server CPUs. I don't want to complicate things by throwing out even more numbers, but let’s just say that Elden Ring consistently hits a solid 60 FPS at 1080p when I pair my GTX 1080 with the Ryzen 5 1600. Meanwhile, Baldur’s Gate 3 and Armored Core VI usually break past the 60 FPS threshold, and depending on the in-game region, I’ve observed frame rates in the 80 FPS range with the same CPU.

With the RTX 3080 Ti, the system was bound solely by the CPU

And in almost every game, the FPS was noticeably lower at 1080p

After wrapping up the benchmarks on the GTX 1080, I plugged my RTX 3080 Ti in its place. In Armored Core VI and Elden Ring, the GPU usage barely hit the 70% threshold, meaning the RTX 3080 Ti was slowed down by the processor.

I usually play both titles at the same resolution (with Ultra settings) on my primary rig, which includes a Ryzen 5 5600X, and as you can imagine, the frame rates were always above the 60 FPS mark. Also, lowering the resolution didn’t increase the frame rate by a lot, and all this did was further reduce the GPU consumption.

Meanwhile, running Cyberpunk 2077 at 4K Ultra settings definitely taxed the last-gen champion, as the GPU utilization remained at 100%. Switching to 1080p made a huge difference to the frame rates, though it’s worth mentioning that even my old Ryzen 5 5600X could easily hit 90+ FPS with the same GPU.

Now for the more interesting results: Red Dead Redemption 2 and Baldur’s Gate 3 ran at surprisingly high frame rates even at 4K. One can argue that I ran RDR2 with slightly optimized settings, but even then, I was quite surprised by the FPS, as it was pretty close to what I usually get on my main rig. But everything made sense once I switched to the Task Manager and checked the utilization of all cores. From the looks of things, both games were efficient at distributing the load across all cores, resulting in better performance than the other titles I tested.

Should you buy Xeon systems for gaming?

Clearly, the answer is a bit more complex than yelling no and calling it a day. If you’re planning to run esports titles, then you should forget about using server CPUs and go for a high-end mainstream processor instead. Likewise, for those who prefer high refresh rates over sharp resolutions, you’ll be sorely disappointed with the performance of server-grade processors.

On the flip side, if you game at high resolutions, where the GPU is more important than the processor, a cheap Xeon setup might just be what you’re looking for. As you’ve already seen, there are a couple of games that can make use of multiple cores to compensate for the lack of single-core performance. Considering how you can grab some of these processors for dirt cheap rates, the FPS hit might be worth it if you don't want to pour over $500 on just the CPU.

To conclude, while the overall performance varies quite a bit depending on the title, you can expect playable FPS at high resolutions once you pair these CPUs with powerful graphics cards. Just keep a weather eye on the power draw of the system if you don’t want to get blindsided by obscenely high electricity bills.