-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Has anyone gone x99 ?
- Thread starter easyrider
- Start date
The issue is software support, as always.
For a game to utilise quad channel memory it needs to be hard coded into the game. It's the same with multiple graphics cards and even that struggles sometimes.
It got so bad at one point on multiple GPUs that EVGA coded their SLI enhancement because Nvidia were slow to adopt the profiles.
Quad channel memory and even DDR4 will only shine when a benchmark is performed. That benchmark will show the difference when the memory is being called upon properly. Otherwise? standard DDR3 is more than enough.
It's just another selling trick to get people to buy. Same as always "Look at this motherboard it has LN2 support, gold plated USB sockets, voltage checkpoints, etc etc".
And then some dude buys it, throws it in a desktop rig and never uses all of those things he's been tricked into buying.
Same goes for graphics cards, memory, you name it. Cases are loaded with stupid features no one will want or use but they make it sell.
AS people pump extra volts through their CPU's and run them at 4.5ghz plus?
As people increase ram voltages to overclock their ram?
As people run Tri and Quad Sli to increase their FPS?
Odd that you didn't comment on the BF4 benchmarks where memory speed does actually make a difference in FPS (especially in Multiplayer maps), as confirmed by another poster after me.
Here is your post again
I'll post one of the actual pictures of the benches from that URL I posted, incase you x58 system can't handle the bandwidth
Here is another user confirming he noticed a difference in FPS when upgrading his memory speed:
BF4 Multiplayer takes full advantage of the fastest CPU's, Memory, GPU's etc. Some levels are very CPU/memory heavy. I guess you don't play BF4, or you'd notice it running badly if you played on a hectic multiplayer map.
My point is you were wrong - in some games, memory bandwidth does make a difference. Keep dreaming that you 1600Mhz x58 system will last forever, if it makes you sleep better buddy.
Maybe you can hire a psychiatrist to talk about you denial issues, and pay for it as a company expense?
Odd that you didn't comment on the BF4 benchmarks where memory speed does actually make a difference in FPS (especially in Multiplayer maps), as confirmed by another poster after me.
Here is your post again
I'll post one of the actual pictures of the benches from that URL I posted, incase you x58 system can't handle the bandwidth
Here is another user confirming he noticed a difference in FPS when upgrading his memory speed:
BF4 Multiplayer takes full advantage of the fastest CPU's, Memory, GPU's etc. Some levels are very CPU/memory heavy. I guess you don't play BF4, or you'd notice it running badly if you played on a hectic multiplayer map.
My point is you were wrong - in some games, memory bandwidth does make a difference. Keep dreaming that you 1600Mhz x58 system will last forever, if it makes you sleep better buddy.
Maybe you can hire a psychiatrist to talk about you denial issues, and pay for it as a company expense?
I'm not going to upgrade for one game...lol...Fact is the gains are hardly worth the outlay...And yes I can afford X99 I could buy 5 systems if I wanted...But It has to be worth my while....
I like home cinema
Take Cinebench...100 points more on X99 over my 6 year old X58 system...FACT
I do a lot of video editing...My hex core Xeon cuts through my HD footage like butter and renders it out in a jiffy....
Fact is X99 and DDR 4 is not worth the outlay...
GOLD plated USB connectors and Gold plated sound sockets....Frantically trying to justify a mobo costing 300 quid
I have a Xonar DX2 in my rig and it blows chunks all over these latest sound modules
I have suffered from Purchase justification syndrome before...And quite frankly I'm loving the fact that my 6 year old retro system can still compete with the latest chips and the loose timings of DDR4 wether its running at 2000mhz+
I'll find the benchmark over at overclock.net.....someone did a direct comparison with DDR3 and DDR4 and the tighter timings of DDR3 makes much more difference than pure MHz when it comes to ram...
In the majority of his testing DDR3 won or held up nicely.
Are you sure about this?
My understanding of it was that the software just sees xGB of memory and has no idea of the channels involved, in the same way that software just sees a RAID stripe as one volume and the controller controls R/W distribution.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 5,474
- Location
- No Mans Land
Mine will run 4.5 easy if I up the volts if I want.
4.4 a nice sweet spot for me though.
Mine will run 4.5 easy if I up the volts if I want.
4.4 a nice sweet spot for me though.
Is that under a serious water loop?
Mine will run 4.5 easy if I up the volts if I want.
4.4 a nice sweet spot for me though.
Yeah they are server chips...run cool and clock well....mine runs 55c full load running cinebench @ 4.2 ghz....
Mines under a 35 quid refurbished corsair H80....basically a brand new unit but last gen...
I'm not going to upgrade for one game...lol...Fact is the gains are hardly worth the outlay...And yes I can afford X99 I could buy 5 systems if I wanted...But It has to be worth my while....
I like home cinema
Take Cinebench...100 points more on X99 over my 6 year old X58 system...FACT
I do a lot of video editing...My hex core Xeon cuts through my HD footage like butter and renders it out in a jiffy....
Fact is X99 and DDR 4 is not worth the outlay...
GOLD plated USB connectors and Gold plated sound sockets....Frantically trying to justify a mobo costing 300 quid
I have a Xonar DX2 in my rig and it blows chunks all over these latest sound modules
I have suffered from Purchase justification syndrome before...And quite frankly I'm loving the fact that my 6 year old retro system can still compete with the latest chips and the loose timings of DDR4 wether its running at 2000mhz+
I'll find the benchmark over at overclock.net.....someone did a direct comparison with DDR3 and DDR4 and the tighter timings of DDR3 makes much more difference than pure MHz when it comes to ram...
In the majority of his testing DDR3 won or held up nicely.
Your out of your mind mate.
You believe X99 scores only 100 more points than your ancient x58 setup?
Your overclocking your x58 xeon. Did you ever consider x99 overclocks too? Or are you really that stupid?
A 5820 overclocked scores over 1300 in cinebench.
A 5960X overclocked scores 1900.
Your overclocked X58 xeon scores 919.
Need me to do the maths for you?
Yes, X99 is expensive. Though that's for a reason - it's the fastest out there with great overclocking potential (with the proper cooling, Intel recommended All in one water coolers as the minimum, since they didn't include a HSW with them).
For most people, X99 is out of reach. That's the point with enthusiast grade hardware. They are designed for those with large amounts of disposable income, who are willing the spend money to get the best.
If you believe X99 isn't worth it over X58, then good for you buddy, save your coins instead. Though coming into the X99 thread, calling it **** and saying it's only "100 points" ahead of your x58 in cinebench is just silly.
Oh, thought it would be fun to see what amaizng technologies the X58 system lacks compared to Z97/X99:
PCI-E v3 (Restricting your GPU performance, especially if using SLI)
USB3
M.2
SATA3 (Enjoy 3gb/sec max speeds, crippling SSD performance, guess you use mechanical drives too, since they are almost as fast as an SSD, right?...)
D2X (I used to use this soundcard. It was great in it's day but now the highend audio on the more expensive motherboards blows it away)
Listen...I said clock for clock...the facts are there...I asked and people benched their 5820 at 4ghz....fact...
BS POST......it's not out of reach for most....it's just not exciting enough...better money is spent on gpus using x79
It's fact....clock for clock x99 ain't all that against 6 year old tech....it's laughable really.
I'm not saying x99 is **** I'm saying it's not worth the money...
Just flashed my bios to enable sli...that's my next bench ....I'm getting another gtx 970 and I'll guess performance loss using pcie 2 will be neglible.
Usb 3 ....a card for 15 quid would sort that but I don't need it....
M.2 not interested...
Sata 3 tested on my mates rig with my SSD samsung evo and it was laughable the tiny difference....certainly nothing one would notice in real terms..
As for sound ...you really are now talking ********
That's highly debatable but for the most part, tosh. The only SLI set up I can even think of that could possibly cause an issue would be 3/4 way SLI. And 3/4 way SLI is not realistic given the absolutely dire gains you get by adding a third or fourth card and don't even get me started on the software support !
Is easily added with a PCIE card costing around £6. Mind you what am I saying? I have four rigs, all with USB3. Know how many USB3 external hard drives I have? none. So it's something I've paid for four times but never used.
Or you could simply just use an SSD or two. M2 and MSATA were designed for laptops primarily. Don't forget there are also plenty of PCIE SSDs on the market.
Nearly all X58 boards have a 4 socket RAID built in. Here are four SATA 2 SSDs.
And here is what they do in RAID.
So as I said elsewhere or even earlier in this thread it's easily gotten around.
And even more snake oil.
Look, I don't disagree with you over power terms. X99 walks all over X58 in terms of raw performance, and so it should it's 6-7 years newer. However, when you strip back all of the BS and get back to reality and ask yourself exactly what it is you intend to do you end up in a sticky situation. 90% of the time I'm on my 8 core rig with an old Quadro in it shooting the crap around the internet. Maybe once a week (especially of late, PC gaming has been dire) I will fire up my PC gaming rig and play a few games on it.
But for 90% of people X99 is nothing but pure self indulgence and something that those 90% will never see the full potential of because it will be gone and sold before the software comes along to even support it (5960x).
As I said, performance in a straight line? X99 demolishes X58. However, actual useable and truly useful features? none of the things you have listed have proven useful to me.
That's highly debatable but for the most part, tosh. The only SLI set up I can even think of that could possibly cause an issue would be 3/4 way SLI. And 3/4 way SLI is not realistic given the absolutely dire gains you get by adding a third or fourth card and don't even get me started on the software support !
Is easily added with a PCIE card costing around £6. Mind you what am I saying? I have four rigs, all with USB3. Know how many USB3 external hard drives I have? none. So it's something I've paid for four times but never used.
Or you could simply just use an SSD or two. M2 and MSATA were designed for laptops primarily. Don't forget there are also plenty of PCIE SSDs on the market.
Nearly all X58 boards have a 4 socket RAID built in. Here are four SATA 2 SSDs.
And here is what they do in RAID.
So as I said elsewhere or even earlier in this thread it's easily gotten around.
And even more snake oil.
Look, I don't disagree with you over power terms. X99 walks all over X58 in terms of raw performance, and so it should it's 6-7 years newer. However, when you strip back all of the BS and get back to reality and ask yourself exactly what it is you intend to do you end up in a sticky situation. 90% of the time I'm on my 8 core rig with an old Quadro in it shooting the crap around the internet. Maybe once a week (especially of late, PC gaming has been dire) I will fire up my PC gaming rig and play a few games on it.
But for 90% of people X99 is nothing but pure self indulgence and something that those 90% will never see the full potential of because it will be gone and sold before the software comes along to even support it (5960x).
As I said, performance in a straight line? X99 demolishes X58. However, actual useable and truly useful features? none of the things you have listed have proven useful to me.
It's 2015 and I expect the latest tech clock for clock to destroy hardware released in 2010.... Fact is it doesn't....
I'd be well miffed spending 1k on shiny new kit and it gets 100 odd points more in a bench against 6 year old tech....
Usb 3 will my keyboard and mouse work faster? That's all I use usb for...
It's 2015 and I expect the latest tech clock for clock to destroy hardware released in 2010.... Fact is it doesn't....
I'd be well miffed spending 1k on shiny new kit and it gets 100 odd points more in a bench against 6 year old tech....
Usb 3 will my keyboard and mouse work faster? That's all I use usb for...
It isn't 100 points though, that I disagree with. It's over 300 points which is around 28% ish. That's obviously far more powerful.
What I do agree with you on, however, is what it will net you in games.
Naff all. This will be even more true as we push on with code that is designed to run on a 1.7ghz pants 8 core CPU that costs peanuts.
just benched and checked..
Its actaully 264 @ 4ghz
Six years on....
44 extra points in performance per year
Staggering!
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 5,165
- Location
- South Wales
easyrider, what are you going to do if Skylake turns out to only be a small 5%-10% improvement over Broadwell?
I'm not sure what everyone is expecting with it, 20% or greater ipc would be nice but i know Intel came out recently saying a 30%+ increase would be impossible, so it's kinda vague. It is too bad that the -k versions aren't due until next year though.
I'm not sure what everyone is expecting with it, 20% or greater ipc would be nice but i know Intel came out recently saying a 30%+ increase would be impossible, so it's kinda vague. It is too bad that the -k versions aren't due until next year though.
It's possible that we have long since passed the era of significant IPC improvements in new generations. Even maximum clock speeds don't seem to be rising any more and of course Intel has resisted increasing the number of cores from 4 in mainstream platforms for about 8 years. Plus, from what I understand you need K versions of CPUs to overclock, which means the cheapest overclockable Core i7s are more expensive than they were 5-6 years ago (maybe about the same including inflation).
Unless AMD can come up with something golden in Zen, I don't see it changing any time soon really, especially when both companies are focussing on low-energy devices. However, we all know what happened after the hype of Bulldozer...
Unless AMD can come up with something golden in Zen, I don't see it changing any time soon really, especially when both companies are focussing on low-energy devices. However, we all know what happened after the hype of Bulldozer...