Instalar o Steam
Iniciar sessão
|
Idioma
简体中文 (Chinês Simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês Tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol de Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol da América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Brasil)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar problema de tradução
Regras e Orientações das Discussões
32 
Denunciar este post
my money to waste
I just not do it in a way that will not hurt performance (to much) just my wallet.
and if the 9950x3d vs 9800x3d like the 7950x3d vs 9800x3d does equal game performance (or just 1 or 2% less) while offering a lot of extra cores and performance in other tasks.. I likely go with that to be released 9950x3d anyway.
You gain nothing by blowing your money on capacity alone. That isn't wise or sensible, it's just stupid.
was it wise to shell out 1350 euro for an i7 5960x and 600 euro for a asus x99 ws-e/usb 3.1 + an corsair dominator 128gb (8x16gb) ddr4 2800mhz cl14 kit?
when performance on a 350 euro 4790k + 150 euro motherboard + 100 euro 32gb ddr3 would be 6% faster in games?
and at best performed equal
even after you overclocked that 5960x by 50% given the 4790k could only overclock by 15% (as the 5960x just overclocked way better)
perhaps not.. but boy did it rock!
to have basicly the same performamce but ddr4 and m.2 and usb 3.1 a full gen earlier+ 128gb ram!! and true 4 way sli 16-16-16-16.. ..
basicly things not always have to make sense.. but I aint building an office pc so I like to sacrifice not too much performance for the rule of cool. just toss more money at it to equal the best of mainstream
performance wise.. or within a 98% margin.. while still getting the cool.
having overkill ram is one of those rules of cool.
treadripper is not an option. the best nearly 10000 euro.. treadripper performs at best at 7600x lvls which is an unacceptable large gap.
sadly there aint a 2000 euro beefed up version of the 9800x3d with double the cores and 4 lane ram support.. like the i7 5950x and the i7 6950x were..
FCLK can only be 1:1 above 6000 when it's done manually, in auto it will go to 1:2 mode.
9800X3D also isn't even overkill either, that's what Ryzen 9 is for, the enthusiast grade.
enthousiast grade cpus started at 600 euro and topped at 2000.
where mainstream topped at 350..
given how prices have inflated i see a 9800x3d more like todays 4970 and the 9950x3d like todays 4970k
but what is todays i7 1350 euro 5860x and 2000 euro i7 6850x?
a 2000-3000 euro cpu that performs like a 7800x3d in games.. but has ddr6 a gen early.. twice the ddr5 lanes (or even ddr6 lanes) usb 4.0.. wifi 7.. 4 lane memory support like my old mobo so you can use 8x32 gb ddr.. for 256gb..
something thats not mainstream but also not treadripper or xeon.. something truelly enrhousiast lvl.
tomorrows tech a littlr earlier..
like the intel X series was.
and I aint going for less than the 128GB ram I already got.
ideally I want 256gb.. I could settle 196gb but anything less is "why bother to upgrade"
but my wallet and sacrifice has limits.
the best performing in games treadripper
AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7945WX 12-Cores
**costs 4500 euro.. thats not 3-4 times an 9800xed thats 9-10 times!
and if at least it had equal gaming performance but it aint.. it had not even 60% the performance of an 7800x3d ingames..
the in games best performing xeon is even worse..
so that route is dead.. thus 4x48gb or 4x64gb it will be. and if that eats 2% performance vs a much cheaper 2x32gb olution than thats totally acceptable..
but not if it becomes?like 5% less fps..
as most of the lower true latency kitts on the market tend to be on the higher end of the spectrum... mt/s wise.. knowing the max running stable is worth knowing..
and well suppose we compare the best kits found..
two of those still to release
G.Skill Flare X5 F5-6000J2838A48GX2-FX5
-kitts.. 6000mhz cl28 2x2x48gb tl9.33
likely come very close to the best performing regulair kits. IF you can get all 4 to rub stable at 6000mhz.
===
the fastest kit possible is :
Kingston Fury Renegade RGB KF580C36RLAK2-48
true latency of 9.
but at 8000mhz unlikely anybody gets that to run on amd.
if you limit yourself to 6400mhz or slower kits than yup true latency 9.33 is the best there is.
====
so 9950x3d paired with 2 kits of
G.Skill Flare X5 F5-6000J2838A48GX2-FX5
-if that runs stable at 6000mhz I be
matching the true latency of the best regulair kits.. but with double the volume.
*heres hoping they get released soon.
Basically it goes something like this: If someone wants the maximum performance possible then they use 2 modules with low capacity like 2 x 16GB at high clocks.
If someone needs high memory capacity with something like 4 x 24GB then they have to understand that using this will mean they will have to suffer both a latency and speed penalty, using higher latency ram kits that run at lower clock speeds compared to what would be possible with a 2x16 kit.
Even 2 x 24GB would have to run at slightly slower speeds than a 2x16GB kit would be capable of.
That's just the nature of computers right now for all computer systems, both Intel and AMD.
sure kits with less memory and dimms always ran faster.. but that was before your cpu was the limiting factor.
the fastest kit on the market is true latency of 9 (2x32gb) 8000mhz
at and below 6400mhz.
the lowest true latency of 9.33 is sharred between 64gb (2x32) and 96gb (2x48gb) kits
including some 5600mhz and 4800mhz kits.
the fastest 32gb (2x16) kit for sale has a true latency of 10 which is cobsiderably slower than 9.33.
the question now is can you get two of those 96gb (48gb) kits to
run together as 4x48gb 6000mhz cl28..
-
if not.. than its biting the true latency 14.66 bullet for the 5600mhz 4x48gb kit or the latency 16.25 bullet for two 2x64gb kits.
amd again where are the enthousiast lvl 4 way 8 ramslot gaming cpus..
why are we after going to 3 way ram and 6 slots (6x8gb dddr3) in 2009 and 8 slots in 2011 (8x8gb ddr3) and 8 slots in 2016 (8x16gb ddr4)
back at crappy mainstream 2 way, 4 dimms... without 4 even working properly.
"Number go higher" doesn't mean "thing is better". If you've been doing this as long as you have, the Pentium 4 should have taught you that.
If you want to set it and forget it (set the RAM profile and call it a day), and if you want to increase the chances that it works, just get 6,000 MHz RAM for AM5 and keep it to two DIMMs. It's that easy.
Yes, that does limit you to 96 GB capacity, but that's plenty for most people. If you're someone it's not plenty for, and if you DO need more, then here's the thing... 128 GB+ RAM running at a lower frequency is still going to be better than 96 GB running at higher frequencies. So you should pick based on how much capacity you will actually use. If you don't need more than 96 GB but you want more than that anyway, well... then you force yourself into a position where you have to choose which is more important; your desire for more RAM than you need, or actual performance.
This is entirely a problem of your own creation. You expected consistent growth out of something (despite it showing long ago that it was no longer doing so) and that's never a guarantee in life. Your last platform required you to go HEDT and double the DIMM count (4 to 8) in order to maintain your "double the capacity". THAT should have been your wake up call that scaling was no longer occurring at the same pace as your upgrade pace. So how did you go from that, needing 8 DIMMs to reach your threshold, to expecting to to drop back down to 4 or 2 DIMMs and still double capacity? You need a single DIMM to grow 4 to 8 times before you can do that, and 16 GB DIMMs were "high capacity" (meaning needed dual rank to achieve) in the middle of 2020, so here we are, a mere four and a half years later, and you expected individual DIMM capacity to have doubled three times over? In less than five years? I... don't know what to tell you. Capacity is slowing down, not speeding up. That's why this last increase was +50% instead of +100% for the first time ever (or at least the first time in recent history).
Anyway, that's your best bet. Just get two DIMMs of 6,000 MHz RAM if you want to set it and forget it and have the best chance it works.
If you don't mind playing with things more and testing your IMC luck, you can get 6,400+ MHz RAM and play with it manually to see how much higher than 2,000 MHz you can get out of the Infinity Fabric.
Note that THIS (the Infinity Fabric) is often the limiting factor for AMD CPUs, not the IMC itself. The "AMD IMC" isn't quite as bad as it appears. That's simply not the real limit here, the Infinity Fabric is. And while Intel calls their stuff different, yes, much of the same principles apply over there which is why you have stuff like "gear 1" and "gear 2" and so on. The IMC on Zen 2 and Zen 3 (AM4) usually topped out a little above 1,800 MHz, and on Zen 4 and Zen 5 (AM5) it usually tops out a little above 2,000 MHz. So for AM4, it was 1,800 MHz (3,600 MHz DDR) that was the sweet spot, and for AM5, it is 3,000 MHz (6,0000 MHz DDR) that is. If you're wondering why the disparity, there's differences in the ratio for AM5 CPUs (I'm not well versed with it myself but there's a third factor in the ratio instead of two now basically).
oh I've been much longer around than pentium 4's.. Ive seen the days commendore64 8088, 80186 etc.. before harddrives, mouses, having a harddrive or dos let alone windows was even a thing:)
and you are in error.
1 i not jumped to the latest HEDT platform from a 4 dimm setup.
in 2008 I jumped on the first generation HEDT I got an i7 965
and paired it with 6 sticks of 8gb ddr3 ram for 48gb.
in 2012 I jumped on the second with an i7 3970x and paired it with 8 sticks of ddr3 8x8=64gb
in 2016 I jumped on the i7 5960x with 8 sticks of ddr4 8x16gb = 128gb
*so 16gb sticks have been around 8 years.. much longer than the 4 year you claim.
for various reasons 2020 was not really upgrade time (had a lot of repairs on this system sinking money..)
it has since been revamped with an 1600 euro 6950x (as the 5960x died) 3200 euro for 2x2080ti in sli (as some of the 4x980ti died)
2000 euro for a custom waterloop including having to replace the cpu block once and pump 3 times as those keep dying.
and nearly 3000 euro in labourbills for having all that rma crap handled..
the insane powerdraws of current gpus where top models always just drawned 250w is quite anoying.. performance gain per watt is quite minimal.
but the time dawns to turn it in a nice win 7 retro pc and fibally get that long overdue new system.
but yeah the death of the HEDT platform and the chooses it forces me to make sucks balls.. I's rather had amd never rysen.. or that amd at least bothered to have a proper version of the HEDT platform (and no treadripper aint it)
and well it would be defensible to go 128gb to 196gb.. thats still progress and the jump from ... 4x1 to 4x2 to 4x4 to 6x8 to 8x8 to 8x16 also included one minor jum of just 25%. even if all the others were doublings.
as you mentioning well from 16gb to 64gb dimms is TWO doublings.. well between 2016 and now would also mean I skipped the normal doubling I would have had in 2020.. so to have 4 times as large dimms in 8 years.. aka?2 generations.. not that farfetched..
Besides, I'm wondering how you got 48 GB of DDR3 in 2008 because that seems a bit early to me? DDR3 was introduced a year earlier in 2007 and DIMM capacities would have been more like, what, 1 GB to 2 GB at that time? Maybe my searching is poor, but trying to look up when 8 GB DIMM capacities were released for DDR3 is turning up dates from 2009 (one result for registered DIMMs only) to 2014. I couldn't say (and the answer probably varies depending on whether you're looking at "first availability" for registered/server stuff using very high rank counts, versus when they actually became common in the consumer space in single or dual rank). I do know that I bought DDR3 RAM in very late 2011 and the 4 GB DIMMs I chose were still dual rank at that time, so I find it hard to believe that 8 GB consumer DIMMs could existed many years before that. I'm pretty sure getting 16 GB in two DIMMs didn't start becoming common until the late DDR3 times (like closer to 2014/Haswell). I also remember a lot of talk in enthusiast/overclocking communities about how more DIMMs incurred frequency compromises (especially on LGA 1366 with more DIMMs), and that makes sense, because this is nothing new. It's simply worse now, is all, but the writing would have been on the wall for you to see for a long, long time now.
I didn't claim 16 GB DIMMs have only been around since 2020. What I claimed was that they were still often "high capacity" at that point, meaning it took dual rank to obtain that capacity in a single DIMM, and that higher capacity in a single DIMM wasn't widely (key word) yet available. I bought RAM in the middle of 2020 and from observation at that time, 128 GB kits (or otherwise kits using 32 GB DIMMs) often had lower selection, slower frequencies, and/or higher timings. So it would seem that was probably around the time 16 GB DIMMs were just about to become possible with single rank and 32 GB DIMMs were becoming possible with dual rank.
Ah yes, RAM scaling slowed down because of AMD.
Imagine being so devoted to following an arbitrary number increase ritual for no sake other than its own that you wish the CPU market never got competitive..
The core performance of current Intel CPUs would also be well behind where they're currently at, it was AMD that was pushing them towards better performance purely by necessity.
The fact that Intel offers 24 cores on the mainstream desktop sockets, you can basically thank AMD for.
intel needed a kick in the butt from amd to put more cores on cpus
intel only competing with themselves did not lead to much improvements each gen