WAN show news on Ryzen

[Dash Lambda]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Unless you moved from PCIe 3.0 x16 to 2.0 x8, there should be no impact on performance, unless there is an issue with your CPU or mainboard.

Even then, a frame or two of difference doesn't really justify the jump to another platform or a more expensive component.

... I'm not talking about upgrading to fix a minuscule drop in performance, I'm just saying that it would've been nice to be able to get rid of the cause of that drop when I upgrade.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Dash Lambda said:

... I'm not talking about upgrading to fix a minuscule drop in performance, I'm just saying that it would've been nice to be able to get rid of the cause of that drop when I upgrade.

Yes, but you shouldn't have that drop (my 1070 didn't see any difference between x16 and x8 when it was OC'd to 2012MHz), and if your profile inf. is correct, you have a 4690K, which is still more than enough to drive the 980Ti and not bottleneck.

[AresKrieger]

18 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

Actually, I did notice a slight impact on performance from cutting the lanes to 8. Nothing big at all, but a consistent drop.

The difference in performance is small, but I'd still rather not have it.

...

... Yes. That is more than 24. Very good job.

Didn't read your first comment my bad, thus I assumed you though Ryzen would meet your needs

[Dash Lambda]

5 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Yes, but you shouldn't have that drop (my 1070 didn't see any difference between x16 and x8 when it was OC'd to 2012MHz), and if your profile inf. is correct, you have a 4690K, which is still more than enough to drive the 980Ti and not bottleneck.

I did add a second card as well, so my platform wasn't consistent... I suppose that gives my results less weight.

Either way, 24 still sounds a tad restrictive. Much better than Intel's consumer platform, it would allow my 950 Pro to run off the CPU with 4 extra lanes without dropping a GPU, but it's still not even as high as Intel's entry-level enthusiast chip.

And to be clear, I'm not naive enough to think I'll actually completely populate it. Beyond two GPU's and an NVMe SSD, I don't really know what I'd add, much less what I'd need more than 4 lanes for. It's just a matter of expandability, like with RAM -Even if I only use 2 DIMM's, I'd feel restricted if I only had two slots.

1 minute ago, AresKrieger said:

Didn't read your first comment, my bad, thus I assumed you thought Ryzen would meet your needs.

It's fine XP

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Dash Lambda said:

I did add a second card as well, so my platform wasn't consistent... I suppose that gives my results less weight.

Either way, 24 still sounds a tad restrictive. Much better than Intel's consumer platform, it would allow my 950 Pro to run off the CPU with 4 extra lanes without dropping a GPU, but it's still not even as high as Intel's entry-level enthusiast chip.

And to be clear, I'm not naive enough to think I'll actually completely populate it. Beyond two GPU's and an NVMe SSD, I don't really know what I'd add, much less what I'd need more than 4 lanes for. It's just a matter of expandability, like with RAM -Even if I only use 2 DIMM's, I'd feel restricted if I only had two slots.

I believe AMD's solution is 16 lanes from CPU, 8 from Chipset.

Intel's is 16 CPU, 20 chipset (with only enough bandwidth to drive 8 at full speed, but these are used for devices where full speed isn't an issue, such as NVMe drives, or adding IO controllers such as SATA or USB).

But with the general trend that NVidia and Intel seem to want, and what most people rock anyways, 24 lanes still makes for a good bit of flexibility.

 

I also run an RX 470 as my main card, the 1070 is a secondary that's used for NVidia optimized games and emulators in 4K if it doesn't look like shit.

[Dash Lambda]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

I believe AMD's solution is 16 lanes from CPU, 8 from Chipset.

Intel's is 16 CPU, 20 chipset (with only enough bandwidth to drive 8 at full speed, but these are used for devices where full speed isn't an issue, such as NVMe drives, or adding IO controllers such as SATA or USB).

But with the general trend that NVidia and Intel seem to want, and what most people rock anyways, 24 lanes still makes for a good bit of flexibility.

Wait, you mean that it would be 16 from the CPU for Zen?

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

I also run an RX 470 as my main card, the 1070 is a secondary that's used for NVidia optimized games and emulators in 4K if it doesn't look like shit.

... Okay, I'm confused. The 1070 is your secondary card? And your main card is a 470?

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Dash Lambda said:

Wait, you mean that it would be 16 from the CPU for Zen?

If I read the post correctly, which I usually just skim them now.

 

1 minute ago, Dash Lambda said:

... Okay, I'm confused. The 1070 is your secondary card? And your main card is a 470?

Yes. Even though the 1070 is leagues above the 470, it gets the bitch tier task of running YouTube when I don't require the power of a 1070 or some of Nvidia's proprietary features.

 

Why, you might ask.

Well, I got the 470 first, and my main monitor is free sync compatible (although not used).

It's also a place holder until I can get my hands on MSI's most powerful VEGA card (the Gigabyte G1 1070 was also supposed to be a placeholder for an MSI 1070, for the build's original theme).

I also see better system stability running the 470 as the main card (it's most stable without the 1070, but the issues are just momentary, as everything initializes after boot, and don't occur often).

[Dash Lambda]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

If I read the post correctly, which I usually just skim them now.

Well, LTT is saying it's 24 lanes, I've never seen them not specify when there are lanes from the chipset.

Unless they don't know the specifics, which is also possible...

 

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Yes. Even though the 1070 is leagues above the 470, it gets the bitch tier task of running YouTube when I don't require the power of a 1070 or some of Nvidia's proprietary features.

 

Why, you might ask.

Well, I got the 470 first, and my main monitor is free sync compatible (although not used).

It's also a place holder until I can get my hands on MSI's most powerful VEGA card (the Gigabyte G1 1070 was also supposed to be a placeholder for an MSI 1070, for the build's original theme).

I also see better system stability running the 470 as the main card (it's most stable without the 1070, but the issues are just momentary, as everything initializes after boot, and don't occur often).

Huh. That's interesting.

Why are the placeholder cards so expensive? That strikes me as an odd choice for placeholders.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Dash Lambda said:

Why are the placeholder cards so expensive? That strikes me as an odd choice for placeholders.

Because the placeholders were/are meant to get their own builds.

The Gigabyte card would have gotten a new home as part of the same build theme (swap the MSI components for Gigabyte), or just as another high end build.

The 470 was a tossup as extra monitors or as an upgrade for my Node 202 Emubox build, as it can drive Dolphin @ 4K fairly well in Star Fox Adventures.