- Joined
- Dec 29, 2017
- Messages
- 4,764 (1.96/day)
- Location
- Swansea, Wales
System Name | Silent |
---|---|
Processor | Ryzen 7800X3D @ 5.15ghz BCLK OC, TG AM5 High Performance Heatspreader |
Motherboard | ASUS ROG Strix X670E-I, chipset fans removed |
Cooling | Optimus Block, HWLABS Copper 240/40 + 240/30, D5/Res, 4x Noctua A12x25, 2x A4x10, Mayhems Ultra Pure |
Memory | 32 GB Dominator Platinum 6150 MT 26-36-36-48, 56.6ns AIDA, 2050 FCLK, 160 ns tRFC, active cooled |
Video Card(s) | RTX 3080 Ti Founders Edition, Conductonaut Extreme, 18 W/mK MinusPad Extreme, Corsair XG7 Waterblock |
Storage | Intel Optane DC P1600X 118 GB, Samsung 990 Pro 2 TB |
Display(s) | 32" 240 Hz 1440p Samsung G7, 31.5" 165 Hz 1440p LG NanoIPS Ultragear, MX900 dual gas VESA mount |
Case | Sliger SM570 CNC Aluminium 13-Litre, 3D printed feet, custom front panel pump/res combo |
Audio Device(s) | Audeze Maxwell Ultraviolet, Razer Nommo Pro |
Power Supply | SF750 Plat, full transparent custom cables, Sentinel Pro 1500 Online Double Conversion UPS w/Noctua |
Mouse | Razer Viper Pro V2 8 KHz Mercury White w/Tiger Ice Skates & Pulsar Supergrip tape |
Keyboard | Wooting 60HE+, TOFU-R CNC Alu/Brass, SS Prismcaps W, Jellykey, Lube/Mod, TLabs Leath/Suede Wristrest |
Software | Windows 10 IoT Enterprise LTSC 19044.4046 |
Benchmark Scores | Legendary |
Do you understand the concept of relative? Can you abstract beyond your own personal subjective?OK let's ask does anyone who has used a 5900X considered slow?
In this post you literally state that you couldn't tell the difference between the 7900 XT and the XTX, cards with a ~20% performance gap, somewhat telling as to how seriously people should take your opinion when it comes to relative performance differences between parts. Instead of jumping into every thread justifying your purchases, talking about the "truth", perhaps you can understand that you're not the only one who has bought these 6+6 parts (I have personally built a 3900X rig and replaced it with a 5800X3D ASAP after the client found the dual CCD design contributed to Excel and Bloomberg issues), and that your lack of objectiveness not only isn't helpful, but is not in line with reality (what you call the narrative).Hence when I went to AM5, I got the 7900X3D. I missed the smoothness of 12 cores (5800X3D) and got the advantage of X3D. Now for Games that don't support X3D, I get 5.6 Ghz on 6 cores that drive my FPS. There is also now AMD advantage on the Desktop and I notice my IGPU being used when playing TWWH3. The only people that hate on these chips are people that don't have them. I have been rocking 12 cores since the 2920X. The 7900X3D is a very powerful chip that rarely goes above 40 Watts when Gaming. It has made Gaming a joy and 4K in all Games is sweet on my 144hz panel when combined with the 7900XT. Give me some of that Re-bar and Hypr-RX goodness. I also have a 5950X and that is a super snappy CPU. The thing is the price difference between the 7900X3D and 7950X3D where I live is a cool $300+ tax and the 7950X is $200 more. It is the same principle I used with the 7900XTX. I got one, sent it back, got a refund and saw the 7900XT was $400+ Tax cheaper. I got one and could not tell the difference between the 2 other than OC GPU clock...by 200 mhz. One of the best deals on AM5 was the regular 7900 CPU for $499. If I was not a Gamer, I probably would have got that chip for the smoothness. The narrative tells us that the 7800X3D is the fastest Gaming chip but the truth is much more nuanced. Of course my RAM runs at a a measly 5200 MHz so there is more performance to achieve. When I get distracted from Gaming. The Old World Map for TWWH3 is about double the size of the Immortal Empires Map, so that gets plenty of play time. So does AMS2 where I am using the AUDI LMP1 2016 vs LMDH, Sauber C9, Mazda 787B and Cadillac DPI from IMSA.
Asus boards on AM5 are rock solid. The RAM issue has been resolved and the Strix boards are the best price/performance that Asus offers. The MSI X670E Pro is the least expensive X670E board and there is an offering from As Rock as well. What you pay for on AM5 are PCIe x16 slots wired at more than x4. That allows for expansion cards connected to the CPU. If you are not thinking about RAID 0 arrays, then B650E is fine as you get enough M2 and SATA ports to satisfy most users.
View attachment 336931
For the 7900X3D/X to make sense, you have to
1. Have a productivity requirement, but not make money from your productivity work (if you do make money, the 7950X3D/7950X pays for itself by working faster, plus the cost of a CPU is marginal compared to software licenses or professional GPUs)
2. Also be a gamer that chooses to game on the same PC you work on (many corporations or individuals avoid this due to security concerns of DRM, virus exposure in some games, physical location of workplace etc.)
3. Not be bothered by having slower gaming performance than cheaper options, or slower productivity performance than cheaper options. Or by doing professional productivity on a platform where ECC memory isn't validated and you only have two RAM channels.
4. Not want to go with the 14700/K instead, which is comparable in gaming performance and faster in productivity while being also being cheaper.
Considering the 7950X is only marginally more expensive than the 7900X3D, it really is a chip stuck in the middle, a "compromise" chip formed of defect dies that weren't good enough for 8 core CCDs. If AMD wanted to make a good 12 core CPU, they would release a 8+4 chip, and that would have few downsides compared to the rest of the Zen stack. However, the x900 series wasn't released for the benefit of consumers, but to recoup money from 7950x chips that couldn't make the cut. In gaming a real eight core is faster. In productivity a cheaper Intel option is faster (and more stable). The 12 core chip uses the same amount of power and creates the same amount of heat as the 16 core, while having inter CCD latency issues that are exacerbated by a higher chance of applications having to use both CCDs. The list of issues goes on.This is a highly specific and I would say, unusual, use case. Hence why, after recent discounts the 50% higher core count chip is only 10% higher in price than the 7800X3D, there's simply not much demand.
No matter how many times you post the same subjective responses kapone, people will be there to correct you with information based in reality. If you're as happy as you claim with your purchase, that's great, maybe skip the defensive advertising posting, lauding the features of your purchase (which aren't unique, the entire Zen 4 stack offers rebar and Hypr-Rx, and Intel/NVIDIA parts have equivalents), and that offers no objectively useful information.
Why do you always get so defensive over this? I had a 5900X and ditched it too; no one said the 12-cores are slow, 8-core SKU will never catch up to the 12 in pure MT perf no matter the OC. But 7900 will be forever be a 7950X-lite. Unless there's some bangin' deal on the 12-core / need it for SFF thermals yet for some reason refuse to tweak a 7950X to do the same / one just needs MT perf yet can't afford 7950X, there's just very little reason to choose it.
Now. Before this thread gets dragged even further off topic, OP has been presented with some good feedback for their build from multiple people. Let's keep further posts focused on that, not adverts for "buy the same thing I have, there's no downside".
Remember, with NAND flash, endurance, performance and SLC cache scales with capacity. A 2 TB drive will have double the endurance as a 1 TB drive of the same model, likely double the pseudo SLC cache, and something like 10% higher real world performance.Yeah, I always go to the makers website and read the specs on there M.2 and whether it's from CPU or chipset
Like the MSI X670E Gaming Plus Wi-fi I was looking at
M.2_1 Source (From CPU) supports up to PCIe 5.0 x4 , supports 22110/2280 devices
M.2_2 Source (From CPU) supports up to PCIe 4.0 x4 , supports 2280/2260 devices
M.2_3 Source (From Chipset) supports up to PCIe 4.0 x4 , supports 2280/2260 devices
M.2_4 Source (From Chipset) supports up to PCIe 4.0 x4 , supports 2280/2260 devices
And since I plan only 2 NVMe currently this is fine.
Currently, PCIe gen 5 M.2 drives offer a less than 2% real world performance benefit over good gen 4 drives, while being close to twice the price, and typically having overheating issues. It's a much better option to buy a 2 TB gen 4 drive for the same money. In future, new gen 5 models will eventually release, with new controllers and flash chips that justify the use of gen 5, but currently there's very little reason to pick a gen 5 drive unless money is no object. I would strongly recommend getting a second 990 Pro, but in 2 TB capacity, rather than the 1 TB Z540 you're considering.
This chart is comparing the 2 TB model, the 1 TB Z540 will be slightly slower, so you're talking about a less than 2% difference in performance compared to a similarly priced 990 Pro or similar tier gen 4 drive, that has double the capacity.