richintheveins

Where did you find this? I've looked for a while but I don't see this block available.

the cards are really good showing two or more expensive/premium arrays (capacitors). The ones that are crashing and showing artifacts have cheap capacitors. The Base Design of these gpus features six mandatory capacitors for filtering high frequencies on the voltage rails. NVIDIA Founders' Edition, MSI Gaming X, ZOTAC Trinity, and ASUS TUF Gaming OC show the use of a hybrid capacitor deployment, with four SP-CAPs and two MLCC groups of 10 individual capacitors each in the center. These models are having zero issues and working at spec. The models that went cheap and are using all six POSCAP (Conductive Polymer Tantalum Solid Capacitors) are generally the worse option for high frequencies. All of the lower end or entry level AIB 3090s are experiencing this. The higher end Asus gpus has confirmed that all six capacitors are the premium 10 individual capacitors. Thus the reason I have interest. No one has broken down the Auros Extreme that I know of but I’m expecting it to be as premium due to it being the highest 3090 Gigabyte has to offer.

Yeah true. I would just like a date. These cards are selling out in seconds. If possible it would be nice to know when and where so I have a small chance to grab one of the gpus of my interest.

No they haven’t been released. I’ve heard rumors of late sept/early oct. They do have conflicting dates online for the Strix but zero info on the Auros which I really want.

Does anyone know the release date of these? I keep hearing various information. The Auros Extreme isn’t even available under “coming soon” online at all.

That is a good question and its entirely subjective. Whatever you create should be tailored to what you do; however, I must say that AMD CPU's are really good in gaming as well. Price to performance the 3700x and 3800x are really good value and do really well in gaming. If your main focus is gaming then the 9700k is awesome and will edge out the prior mentioned cpus in gaming alone; however, you are paying a premium and the 3800x will give you good gaming and excellent multi core performance plus all the ryzen chips are future proofed with their new 7 nm architecture that offers more L3 Cache and PCIe 4.0. If you want the best of both worlds (outside of the pricey 3950x) then currently the 3900x gives you amazing gaming performance plus amazing multi core performance so if you are streaming it will handle that with ease due its 12 core/24 threads. Now if all you care about is FPS. I mean literally ALL YOU CARE ABOUT IS FPS. and you plan to play on either a 240 hz monitor or a ultra wide/super ultra wide and (this is important) you plan to purchase a 2080 ti. If all of those are checked then go with an high end intel chip. Me personally I love clock speed and gaming performance. I'm rocking a 9900KS with a 2080 ti connected to a LG38GL950G. I did this to be able to put out as many Frames as possible while playing Modern Warfare, Division 2, Resident Evil 2/3, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order etc on ULTRA. I don't care about synthetic multi core performance as to me my cpu does amazing in adobe premier and various other things I do for work. So to get through this long message building a PC is a huge decision. If you like clock speed, overclocking, your main focus is gaming, and you plan to build an expensive gaming rig with all the highest end parts then WAIT and see what this 10900k will do. It should perform better than the 9900k and will offer better multi core performance at the same price point as the 9900k today. I'm sure its clear as mud. lol But that's the beauty of today's market there are so many options and really in the DIY space the options are plentiful. Enjoy building its one of my favorite past times.

You hit it on the nail. There is a market for these CPUs and as long as they are enthusiast type chips there will be buyers; however, I thing its important for Intel to show some promise beyond tinkering and high clock speeds. Like many of you have said we have to wait and see the reviews to be able to really quantify the performance. Only then can we speak on the value. As of now I'm a bit underwhelmed, but maybe just maybe Intel will prove me wrong once they are released for review. I'll be watching.........

I agree with you, but of course sometimes all sense is thrown out the door and you buy the most powerful mainstream gaming CPU and put it in your rig just because you can. AKA the i9 9900K ****Its a beautiful thing to play AAA titles on Ultra and consistently get 80-120 FPS.**** There will be people who will buy this CPU (pending Benchmarks and reviews) just to do that.

I agree on everything you're saying ; however, I would like for them to stop doing "solid upgrades" and bring some inovation to the table. I personally prefer Intel, but I'm losing faith in their product. Hopefully this 14 NM +++++++ ends up being alot more competitive with the 3900x then I'm expecting. Gaming is important to me, but PC's can offer so much more. I am belief (if nothing else) this will be a way better gaming/streaming chip with the added cores.

I agree I just was hoping that even this old 14 nm chip would close the gap with the 3900X (specifically multi core work loads). That would be a pretty big deal considering its dated technology.

I agree, but I more than likely wouldn't buy it regardless. I just want some real competition. Intel needs to step it up.

I can't say I'm impressed. 2 more cores and 4 more threads with a whole bunch of "Up to" Marketing without any real performance increase to consider. I was really hoping for this to give the 3900x some true competition, but instead we just got a more power hungry chip on old architecture. Just my thoughts. If anyone has any additional insight please humor me....

I ran Aida64 and it crashed :-/ I'm at a loss I've tried everything to get this to work even purchased two other 4000 mhz kits prior to the predator ram that crashed my PC as well. I've received many different errors since this venture of 4 8 gb sticks @ 4000 mhz. Would my PSU potentially be the issue (its 6 years old). Any ideas to make this work or am I stuck at a lower frequency ram. I attempted to use XMP profile 1 (3600 mhz) last night and run a stability test. I ran Aida64 for 10 hrs with everything checked with no errors. Am I stuck with this? I really want it to run at 4000. Performance isn't even the issue its more principle and the time invested to make this happen. Any ideas would help. Thanks!

Wow! Great explanation. Thank you for taking the time to provide examples as well. I can't say I'm not afraid to slam it because boy will it be disappointing if it freezes or gives me a BSOD, but I realize it's necessary.

Oh I know its an IMC thing, but I've really worked hard to obtain stability. I will run a more broad stress test to slam it to the max. I typically avoid test that crank up the CPU, because its not real world experiences. I've never seen my CPU eclipse 55 degrees while playing AAA titles on max settings so slamming it to crank it up beyond 70+ degrees for 12+ hours is perplexing to validate daily usage. Def not saying there's no value just something I've always questioned.

So for the past two weeks I have been figuratively and at times literally banging my head up against the wall attempting to stabilize HyperX Predator 4000 MHZ ram. I have used the XMP profiles (1 and 2) only to have instability issues (Freezing, Game Crashing, BSOD). I thought maybe it was defective ram but after tweaking the DRAM, Viccio and SA plus timing adjustments (16,16,16, 36 & 17, 17, 17, 38) I was able to run Memtest86 with no errors for 8 passes. Due to it being 4 sticks at a total of 32 gb of ram this process took around 24 hours. This left me even more perplexed to still have BSOD and crashes and even boot issues causing the system to automatically go back to default settings. I have verified that the instability comes from the ram because if I run it at 3200mhz or less all the instability goes away. I was at a loss so I back tracked my BIOS back to 1302, went into command prompt and ran the SFC Scan and the DISM Tool to restore Health. No help.... Last ditch effort I went into the Bios set everything to Auto and increased my frequency to 4000 mhz saved it and restarted in hopes my damn Mobo would tell me what it wanted to run it at this speed or just crash and I rip it out and move on..... but strangely it booted..... Strangely it chose pretty good settings on its own 1.35 DRAM, 1.25 IO, 1.25 SA. DRAM Timings 17,17,17,39 (the XMP profile is way looser) When i got in I checked for any more updates on my windows (updated it to 1909) checked CPU-Z to verify that I wasn't dreaming annnnnd bam restarted it and it booted in really quick and I ran Aida64 for a memory stability test for over 4 hours and then played Division 2 and RE2 with no crashes and no BSOD for another 4 hours. Just to make sure I even did a cold boot by unplugging the power letting it sit for 5 min and then plugged it back in and still no shutting on and off just straight into windows. I'm not trying to say manual Overclocking is bad or anything but if anyone wants to try it out (if all else fails) it worked for me. Putting the tweaker on Manual and only changing the frequency allowed my Mobo to tell me what it needed to be stable. I'll continue to monitor for errors but so far so good. Still confused though! lol

Hey everyone I'm back after testing. I had some questions. It took quite a bit of time to get the 2 ram kits stable (mostly due to rookie mistakes). The XMP profiles didn't work unless I pushed the voltage too high for my taste. I finally got the ram sticks to run with manual settings at the following timings. Mode 2 Cas# lantency: 17Ras# to Cas# delay: 17Ras# act time: 37 Comand Rate: N2 DRam V: 1.42 IO: 1.18 SA: 1.25 I ran memtest86 for 24 hrs 6 passes. No errors. Do you think I could tighten up the timings more? Right now I think they look pretty darn good but any thoughts would be extremely helpful.

Yes buying a better GPU always prevails, but I’m trying to squeak out the best performance. I already have a KS and a 2080ti. I just wanted to see if the best ram would make a difference but it hardly does....

Has anyone seen low latency (lets say CL16 or 17) with high frequency (lets say 3800 or 4000 MHz) affect gaming FPS? I'm starting to wonder that the "Cadillac" of ram really doesn't affect gaming. I know the age old statement of "does frequency really matter?" I get that, but does it even matter when latency is low and the frequency is high. I'm starting to wonder if any version of 3200 mhz ram is really all you need (coupled with a decent CPU and a great GPU) when it comes to affecting gaming. Any other input would be great.

Tbh I have very little experience with GSkill. I typically purchase HyperX and they have been good to me, but the timings on this set of ram intrigues me to say the least.

Any one have thoughts on this ram. The timing is super tight and somewhat unheard of at this frequency out the box. Just wanted peoples thoughts on it.

Fair enough. I’m definitely not discrediting your experience, but I can’t say I’ve experienced the same thing. I have both the LG 27GL850-B and the LG 38GL950G. I use the 850 as my secondary monitor; however I do use the monitor for games that aren’t optimized for ultrawide. When using it it’s just as responsive/snappy and smooth as the 950G. Thus the reason I recommended to save some money and get a brighter screen. I do agree that HDR isn’t really relevant atm, but you would be “future proofing” yourself if you have a mid range HDR gaming monitor. Previously, I used a CRG9. For games like Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Division 2 HDR really brings the game to life. I will say I hope you are right as far as performance for the 950G in comparison to the new GN950G as I’ve already purchased the prior model.

I bought the LG 38GL950G and honestly if you can wait I'd grab the new one. It will more than likely be cheaper and have higher HDR (HDR 600 >400). Additionally the 175hz is somewhat of a gimmick due to the limited bandwidth that Display port 1.4 can currently handle not to mention hardware with AAA titles on max settings will ever consistently reach. Basically you have to reduce your colors to chroma subsampling 4:2:2 to be able to reach 175 hz; however, you can run the monitor with full RGB @ 160 hz. WIth the new monitor maxing out at 160 hz it makes sense. You keep your amazing colors that this monitor is built for and at the same time have more than enough speed with the refresh rate with an added increase in peak brightness. Not to mention lose the Gsync module which will net the price lower. Its literally a no brainer and if I could go back I would grab the new model in a heartbeat.

Thanks for the links! I will read them when I get a chance. All good stuff to get me started in the right direction.

Hey Thanks! I will give this a try when I get home. I def need to take out two of the sticks first and see if it stabilizes. From there I will use your suggestions.