Search the Community

I recently got an Intel i9-12900K (turbo power 241W) and was watching a bunch of GamersNexus' CPU cooler benchmarks trying to figure out what cooler would be sufficient for my workload (CAD, rendering, and FEA mostly). However, in many of his videos a ~200W load only reach steady state temperature deltas of ~50-60 degrees above ambient (so 75-85C, assuming ambient ~25C). Moreover, the best coolers (e.g., the $160 Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360 or $135 DeepCool Assassin III) only seem to have a ~10C temperature delta over a cheaper cooler (e.g., the $40 Thermalright Peerless Assassin, or the $65 AK620) at these loads. However, other forums online post that i9-12900K's can easily get up to 100C with "insufficient cooling" (setting aside what they define as insufficient for now). Moreover, in the $40 Thermalright Peerless Assassin video, the 198W noise-normalized test (at 35 dBA) generally seemed to reach less than 5C more than the 123W noise-normalized test (also at 35 dBA). These stats all seem to contradict my common sense/each other - I'd appreciate any help understanding these discrepancies! More specifically, my questions are: Why do even the cheap coolers in GamersNexus' reviews only reach 75-85C with 198W sustained loads, while forums online say the Intel i9-12900K can easily reach 100C? How do these 198W tests differ from real high-wattage loads (if anything, I would've thought GamersNexus' method was more rigorous, since I imagine most workloads naturally ramp up and down over time instead of staying constant)? Assuming GamersNexus is right and even relatively high power draw doesn't throttle a CPU, is there any reason to shell out $100 USD extra for a better CPU cooler if I don't plan to overclock? Maybe a second point to this: is 10C even that huge a difference performance-wise, if you're not getting close to the 100C Intel CPU's reportedly throttle heavily at? Why would a 198W noise-normalized test only reach ~5C more than a 123W noise-normalized test? Can I extrapolate, so that even my 241W turbo Intel chip should reach ~5C more than GamersNexus' 198W load tests with a given cooler? Note that I'm not really looking for cooler recommendations - there are enough of those on the forum already. I'm more just trying to resolve my questions after trying to watch these online reviews and seeing conflicting results (although given GamersNexus' respect online, I imagine there's a good explanation I just can't think of). Thank you very much!

Gamersnexus about a month ago made a video on a review for a MSI prebuilt. While i was watching the video something was bugging me about the gpu that was in this prebuilt. So the video says it's a 2060 super and that in their charts they marked it as a 2060 super as well, but I don't think this is one. I personally think this is a 2070 super because of the amount of pcie power pins the card needs and that this gpu has nvlink fingers on it. However I'm not sure on this. It could be a strange variant, but I couldn't find anything that pointed towards a different variant. So I need your help, is this gpu a 2060 super or is this a 2070 super? (video is posted here)

So i was browsing the web and doing research on CPU coolers when i found this on Asetek website [ https://www.asetek.com/gamingenthusiasts/technology-for-gamingdiy/cpu-cooling ]

Watch dogs 2 released on current gen consoles 2.5 weeks ago, and has been given a delay for the PC version to improve the game suited for PC players. And there were a lot of things Ubisoft wanted to add and improve (see here). Today it is the day the PC version is finally out; thus the Mr. Robot simulator is put to the test with benchmarks! *Do note that this is a Nvidia Gameworks title* First, we'll start with guru3D. They have tested the game with the latest nvidia and AMD drivers http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/watch-dog-2-pc-graphics-performance-benchmark-review.html 1080p 1440p 4K VRAM usage i7 5960X vs. FX 8370 Now onto Gamersnexus' benchmarks. They have also tested the game with the latest nvidia and AMD drivers http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2700-watch-dogs-2-gpu-benchmark-11-video-cards Performance scaling with the different visual presets 1080p Ultra 1080p Very High 1440p 4K Very High If you are curious what the 1% and 0.1% Low numbers are on about, it is sort-of self-explanatory: the lowest 1% and 0.1% frame rates observed Last up is techpowerup. They too used the latest drivers https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Performance_Analysis/Watch_Dogs_2/ A video to indulge and drool on the sheer amount of visual settings available VRAM Usage 1080p 1440p 4K Disclaimer: As far as I know, all of these benches are done without using Nvidia gameworks features, such as HFTS. the above presets will not use Nvidia gameworks features unless you deliberately turn them on. I believe these features are disabled on the AMD side. Apart from Gameworks features, there are even more options available past Ultra that can be used on both Nvidia and AMD. It is mentioned here by techpowerup In addition the Temporal AA the game uses is very similar to the variety used in Rainbow Six Seige: the game is rendered at half the selected resolution, then 2x MSAA is applied. The difference is negligible in still shots, but in motion it can look quite gnarly. guru3D has Temporal AA disabled, whereas Gamersnexus and techpowerup I am unsure about. Finally, something to note: The game uses an Anti-cheat system called EasyAntiCheat that prevents the use of RTSS, even while offline. One can roll back to a very old RTSS version to get overlays working, or get EasyAntiCheat to white-list RTSS. http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/update-watch-dogs-2-anti-cheat-system-blocks-rtss-overlay-software.html This could also prevent modding, regardless of whether RTSS is white-listed My thoughts: Seeing that this is a gameworks title, AMD is pushed back a ways with nvidia at the forefront. But the Rx Fury keeps up quite well! Interesting In general though, this is a demanding title. Personally the game looks pretty slick in spite of how demanding it is, but whether one can say it is unoptimized.. perhaps it is. I have looked around, and there are no news of a patch yet.

Gamersnexus took a crack on benching a couple of Intel and AMD (!) CPUs on BF1 http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2673-battlefield-1-cpu-benchmark-dx11-vs-dx12-i5-i7-fx Some notes before viewing the results *So really the following (except the explicitly stated 480 8gb) used the EVGA 1080 hybrid at 1080p Dx11 results Dx12 Quick test with a 8370 and 480 8gb Their conclusion Honestly I wish there was a way to test in multiplayer, but considering the amount of variables it's clearly not a viable method. nevertheless i believe this is decent enough data to go by. and looking at the results, i feel i ought to upgrade to an i7 sometime in the future

Good guys at GamersNexus have tested out performance of Vega56 and Vega64 at the same core and HBM speed, showing practically zero perfomance gained from the additional 512 SPs that V64 has. It looks like the same old 290 vs 290X and Fury vs Fury X story, or even 470/570 vs 480/580. I'm personally quite concerned about this because it's not going to affect Vega only, but also Navi which will heavily rely on adding more cores (MCM designs) and will suffer severe bottlenecking if AMD can't manage to solve this issue. Judging by these results, Vega 11 GPUs will probably be very close to Vega56 clock for clock. GCN probably has some serious internal bottlenecking which destroys scaling past a certain number of SPs, probably caused by low ROP count and/or inefficient processing of instructions elsewhere. Moreover, some features seem to be still disabled on Vega cards. article: https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3053-vega-64-vs-vega-56-clock-for-clock-shader-differences UPDATE: GN is probably going to test the same for nvidia cards, according to a comment under the youtube video

Gamers Nexus is reporting that they've been able to show that some versions of the RTX 2060 performs up to RTX 2080 performance in productivity applications. This is due to Nvidia selling their TU 104-410 gpu die (previously seen in the RTX 2080) that are speculated to not have met QC requirements. This new version of the die, codenamed TU 104-150, seem's to have many of its FPU's disabled, leading to floating point heavy applications such as gaming seeing similar performance to the TU 106 based RTX 2060's. What GN is speculating and hoping to gain confirmation on is that many of the CUDA core's on the cards did in fact pass validation, meaning that applications that can utilizes these cores being vastly accelerated. Initial performance analysis shows that the 2 difference versions of the RTX 2060 have similar if not identical gaming performance. The TU 104 based card see's all of it's productivity benchmarks either within margin of error at the worst, or up to 47% improved in certain edge cases compared to its TU 106 based counterpart. EVGA does not seem to have been aware that the different dies would perform differently. After reaching out to NVIDIA, GN was able to confirm that the performance uplift they measured is with NVIDIA observed before launch. The 2 dies are reported to cost nearly the same to add in board partners. GN speculated that they expect the TU 106 based version to perform better than the TU 104 based version when overclocked due to additional power headroom available to the former die when compared to the later. GN has yet to publish an article detailing their findings, but did publish a video on their YouTube channel detailing what they've discovered. The Video is embedded below. Youtube embedded privacy mode is enabled for the video. If you do not wish to have your data tracked add this extension to the YouTube URL to access the video directly: /watch?v=mUFRBnJdx3Y https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/mUFRBnJdx3Y