-
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.
Anyone gone X99 to OC 7900x?
- Thread starter Caracus2k
- Start date
Can you expand a little to help with where you have noticed improvements the most?
I wasn't suggesting that it is compatible. Just looking for people's views on going from an X99 platform specifically to an overclocked 7900x/x299 platform. I have owned a 5820k and now have a 5960x (both overclocked) so I have a pretty good idea about where X99 performance sits just asking if anyone can give me their comparisons of going to an OC 7900x as it's the only Skylake-x chip that would make sense for my usage with the more expensive chips losing too much per core clock speed for their extra cores which I would not make suitable use of and the cheaper chips losing either to many cores or/and pci-e lanes/memory channels
Last edited:
Games I have seen a noticeable improvement in FPS and in general fluidity, if I use BF1 for a example I have gone from around 100 - 115 FPS on average to being more less pegged at 144FPS. However, I guess some of the smoothness can be attributed to moving to a 165Hz screen. Also game and stream at the same time now without being CPU limited as before it at a notable impact on the games and in some cases it was unplayable. To add to that in 3D benchmarks which I know are not real world examples, the 7900X monsters the 6850K my Timespy benches are a good example of that as well.
In Photoshop, Lightroom, Premier I've seen a subtle but noticeable improved in speed, like applying effects etc...
If you need any more information let me know.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 11,793
- Location
- Derby
Has anyone done this and realised that their NVMe speeds are shocking?
Mine looks to have gained from my X99 setup by 100MB/s. However, that's running my Intel 750 (800GB) drive. I should have 3 960's at the end of the month so I can test again then.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 6.0.0 x64 (C) 2007-2017 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : https://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s]
* KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes
Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 2241.728 MB/s
Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 917.276 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 8,T= 8) : 1421.358 MB/s [ 347011.2 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 8,T= 8) : 887.846 MB/s [ 216759.3 IOPS]
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 658.503 MB/s [ 160767.3 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 589.240 MB/s [ 143857.4 IOPS]
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 43.643 MB/s [ 10655.0 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 291.901 MB/s [ 71264.9 IOPS]
Test : 1024 MiB [C: 20.9% (155.7/744.6 GiB)] (x5) [Interval=5 sec]
Date : 2017/11/08 11:26:48
OS : Windows 10 Professional [10.0 Build 16299] (x64)
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 11,793
- Location
- Derby
That isn't hitting the limitation of the PCH yet. I wouldn't bother with 3 x 960s in RAID as you will come across the same issue as I have. Unless you use the PCIe lanes that are associated to the CPU rather than the chipset. 
Asus/Intel do not seem to want to do anything about it and consider it a limitation of the chipset. 
Obviously this is a problem if you have several other components in the system and HAVE to use the M.2 NVME slots. 
Asus/Intel do not seem to want to do anything about it and consider it a limitation of the chipset. Obviously this is a problem if you have several other components in the system and HAVE to use the M.2 NVME slots. That isn't hitting the limitation of the PCH yet. I wouldn't bother with 3 x 960s in RAID as you will come across the same issue as I have. Unless you use the PCIe lanes that are associated to the CPU rather than the chipset.
Mine are all configured to use CPU lanes, i'll just order one then and test it to see how it performs with what you have said above.
Are you running a 960 EVO or and Pro and is there any real world difference between them?
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 11,793
- Location
- Derby
Tried both. They seem to be limited to about 1700mbps write and 2400-2500mbps read. So losing about 25% performance. RAID seems to be limited to approx. 3000/3000 (With 3 drives) and intel seem to have washed their hands of it stating that its a limitation of the chipset. even though the issue isn't apparent on X99, Z170/270/370 nor threadripper x399!
even though the issue isn't apparent on X99, Z170/270/370 nor threadripper x399!
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 11,793
- Location
- Derby
Oh I understand, the problem is that the drives are stated to perform at a specific speed but so far no X299 boards I have used the onboard M.2 slots on have ran anywhere near that speed. As I have stated, older/consumer chipsets do not seem to have this issue and for intel to state its a restriction on the chipset and they have washed their hands of it when I have customers who are not getting advertised performance is pretty shocking.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 5,460
- Location
- No Mans Land
Seems a pretty pointless upgrade path to me.
I’d wait till there’s something better from Intel.