cpu score seems around an overclocked 9900k but for having done roughly 60 time spy and 60 firestrike since dec 2019
those benchmarks are unreliable same cpu same config drivers I have score ranging from 9500 to 12300 cpu for the same hardware depending on the day...
I trust ingame benchmarks way more now like tomb raider or borderlands 3
No, meant why buy a cpu with HT, if your not using it?
HT was not the reason. And 10 cores without HT is better than 6 cores with HT. If future games will learn how to use more than 8 cores then I can switch HT on. Right now I do not need HT.
not better, but a lot cheaper, meaning more funds for the gpu, easily giving a lot more fps than the cpu (gains), as clearly your not using it for "production" (and turn on/use HT).
Not even looking at the fact that by the time (all) games will make use of +8 cores will be a while,
and most likely getting outperformed by any 6 C at that time, probably cheaper.
When I overclock both cpu and memory on 9900k and 7980xe, they are both faster in any game than my overclocked 3900x. So looks like there is not much performancehit in those vulnerabilities updates....
God 10600 points in Cinebench r20 with 7980xe overclocked, så it does beat the "unbeatable" 3950x in rendering. 7980xe is 2,5 years old 😛
PS: I love both AMD and Intel 🙂
God 10600 points in Cinebench r20 with 7980xe overclocked, så it does beat the "unbeatable" 3950x in rendering. 7980xe is 2,5 years old
You did pay a lot for that kind of performance 2.5 years ago though.
If you like to render and game, you could buy a 3950 and a 9900 system for the same money now and have 2 complete PCs.
A 7980xe needs around twice as much power and cooling compared to a 3950x, delid and watercooling is pretty much a requirement for a 7980xe to beat the 3950x.
The performance hits where mostly felt in SSD performance and other data move heavy tasks, so a 3950x with pci 4 SSD could be well over twice as fast compared to a 7980xe setup, so it depends on what you do with your system.
You did pay a lot for that kind of performance 2.5 years ago though.
If you like to render and game, you could buy a 3950 and a 9900 system for the same money now and have 2 complete PCs.
A 7980xe needs around twice as much power and cooling compared to a 3950x, delid and watercooling is pretty much a requirement for a 7980xe to beat the 3950x.
The performance hits where mostly felt in SSD performance and other data move heavy tasks, so a 3950x with pci 4 SSD could be well over twice as fast compared to a 7980xe setup, so it depends on what you do with your system.
On my 7980xe setup:
2x Adata sx8200pro
Optane 900p 480GB
Try to beat that with 3950x. I can't beat that with my 3900x on Asrock x570 Taichi 😉
The 4k random read @QD=1 is faster on my 9900k setup, but slower on 3900x setup...
So it depends on what you do 😛
Optane 900/905p works like a normal ssd with AMD. It's not the optane "cache" m.2 😉
Optane 900p worked on my Amd 1950x x399 too.
If you use AMD's drivers thats correct but if you use 3rd party software you can slide load Intel's proprietary driver so that it no longer uses the NVMe driver (interface limiter) Linus Tech tips did it
Conclusion in most cases runs faster on AMD + Optane by around 10-20% than Intel with Optane but this will be due to the direct to CPU latency rather than going through the chipset (like Intel) and you need to spend $30 for the licence on the AMD platform. Remember on the AMD platform it must be on the top most interface which connects direct to CPU. So Intel have limited to their platform because they don't want their competitor to use cause it works just as good or better on their platform, but there are always work arounds.
However who knows maybe Intel will sue premocache in the future or gets the feature removed? Thats the sort of crap nVidia did **physx** by removing AMD graphics card support with a nVidia card doing the physx calculations.
Proprietary software is great is it not????
[youtube=rWXBo0bb_dU]
"No one" cares about cache programs, because it's not working unless you use the same files all the time. That is why I'm using Optane 900p. Fast loading when reading files from the first time 🙂
Windows prefetch is doing much of the cachework anyway.
My opinion.
However who knows maybe Intel will sue premocache in the future or gets the feature removed? Thats the sort of crap nVidia did **physx** by removing AMD graphics card support with a nVidia card doing the physx calculations.
Oh they were supposed to SUPPORT AMD cards?
LOL thats a new one.
"grrrr Nvidia I write u becaz my HD5850 runs PhysX sooo slooow on Catalyst 12.1. Git ur sht together Ngreedia"
"No one" cares about cache programs, because it's not working unless you use the same files all the time. That is why I'm using Optane 900p. Fast loading when reading files from the first time 🙂
Wrong.
as a tiered cache all writes are to the optane cache and lazy algorythms push this data to the hdd in good time, its actually a great way of preventing fragmentation.
Wrong.
as a tiered cache all writes are to the optane cache and lazy algorythms push this data to the hdd in good time, its actually a great way of preventing fragmentation.
Cache program is good if you have HDD, not better than pure Optane 😉
@nizzen
so your running the drives @4.0?
no one buys 3900 with x570 and install a 5y old ssd, so at least compare with what the HW allows on the amd,
and not "limits" set buy the intel chip/hw
@nizzen
so your running the drives @4.0?
no one buys 3900 with x570 and install a 5y old ssd, so at least compare with what the HW allows on the amd,
and not "limits" set buy the intel chip/hw
What are you talking about?
There is no fast pci-e 4.0 ssd's in the marked wort buying over Optane 900p/905p and Adata sx8200pro. All pci-e 4.0 has "slow" 4k random read @ QD=1 like most pci-e 3.0 nvme ssd's ~60MB/s.
Ps: Optane 900/905p has over 300MB/s 4k rr @ qd=1 😉
I'm waiting for Adata Sage pci-e 4.0 and Optane pci-e 4.0. Maybe late 2020, or spring 2021.
Want FAST? Here is my 3x optane 900p in raid-0 😉
Work horse 😛
https://www.diskusjon.no/topic/1794063-intel-optane-ssd-tr%C3%A5den/page/3/
On my 7980xe setup:
2x Adata sx8200pro
Optane 900p 480GB
Try to beat that with 3950x. I can't beat that with my 3900x on Asrock x570 Taichi 😉
The 4k random read @QD=1 is faster on my 9900k setup, but slower on 3900x setup...
So it depends on what you do 😛
Well if you are using it as a standalone drive and not using it as a cache (optane + SSD or All in one NVMe 32GB optane + 960GB SSD) then it should be the same performance regardless of platform be it Intel or AMD because it is done on the hardware level and not software like the caching version which requires tiering. You still have to install the Intel Optane driver (or Intel motherboard drivers which has it included) because optane uses the NVMe 1.1 specification which is not included out of the box on AMD platforms (NVMe 1.0 drivers).
Requirement, motherboard that conforms to NVMe specification and PCIe device boot switching https://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/uk/en/support/articles/000025741/memory-and-storage/enthusiast-ssds.html
Drivers are here, there is nothing related to only working for any specific platforms: https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/29350/Intel-Rapid-Storage-Technology-Intel-RST-Floppy-Driver-Package?product=123625
Thus it doesn't matter what platform you are using so long as your board allows you to boot from a PCIe card and supports NVMe, thus it's not a reason at all to own an Intel platform to use Optane.
In Fact we know Optane works fine on AMD platforms because Intels storage team is using AMD Ryzen 3000 processors on X570's to test their upcoming Optane on PCI 4.0 https://www.techspot.com/news/83402-intel-prototyping-pcie-40-ssds-but-needs-amd.html
Optane 900p 480GB
Try to beat that with 3950x. I can't beat that with my 3900x on Asrock x570 Taichi 😉 The 4k random read @QD=1 is faster on my 9900k setup, but slower on 3900x setup... So it depends on what you do 😛