Z390 Motherboard with PCIe 3.0 supports RX 5700?

[Tiffanysinyee]

1 minute ago, Fasauceome said:

I'm saying you would be correct, but the 5700 does not do that, because it can't handle that much data. The 5700 does not exceed a PCIe 3.0 X16's worth of data despite the fact that it uses PCIe 4.0.

Then why on earth does its specification say it is PCIe 4.0, that causes confusion to builders like us....

[Fasauceome]

2 minutes ago, Tiffanysinyee said:

Then why on earth does its specification say it is PCIe 4.0, that causes confusion to builders like us....

It has PCIe 4.0, it just doesn't fully utilize it. It's a technical spec, so it's correct, but it doesn't impact any features.

[Tiffanysinyee]

So, for the sake of future upgrade, if now I choose to build an Intel Z390 based PC, which is NOT supporting PCIe 4.0. And in a year or two, I want to upgrade my graphics card to RX 5700 (assuming it is still available for sale), the overall capacity of the RX 5700 will still be fully utilized without changing the mobo to a X570 mobo, correct?

[Tiffanysinyee]

3 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

It has PCIe 4.0, it just doesn't fully utilize it. It's a technical spec, so it's correct, but it doesn't impact any features.

Ok, better, I seem to have got that.

 

So, for the sake of future upgrade, if now I choose to build an Intel Z390 based PC, which is NOT supporting PCIe 4.0. And in a year or two, I want to upgrade my graphics card to RX 5700 (assuming it is still available for sale), the overall capacity of the RX 5700 will still be fully utilized on the Z390 mobo, correct?

[Mathieu9836]

The only Valuable reason to buy X570 is if you NEED to transfert a lot of data really fast (NMVe drives), other then that 98% of people with PCs don't need PCIe Gen4. Any other chipset will make the job with any current GPUs.

[Fasauceome]

7 minutes ago, Tiffanysinyee said:

Ok, better, I seem to have got that.

 

So, for the sake of future upgrade, if now I choose to build an Intel Z390 based PC, which is NOT supporting PCIe 4.0. And in a year or two, I want to upgrade my graphics card to RX 5700 (assuming it is still available for sale), the overall capacity of the RX 5700 will still be fully utilized on the Z390 mobo, correct?

Yes, even though the graphics card uses PCIe 4.0, it will function the same on your PCIe 3.0 motherboard, so it would be a good choice.

[Tiffanysinyee]

2 minutes ago, Mathieu9836 said:

The only Valuable reason to buy X570 is if you NEED to transfert a lot of data really fast (NMVe drives), other then that 98% of people with PCs don't need PCIe Gen4. Any other chipset will make the job with any current GPUs.

ok

[Tiffanysinyee]

7 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

Yes, even though the graphics card uses PCIe 4.0, it will function the same on your PCIe 3.0 motherboard, so it would be a good choice.

Thanks Fasauceome

 

I have another question for you. I intend to build a gaming PC which can last for at least 5 years. I have most of the prospective parts selected like PSU, NMVe, RAM, Case, AIO and case fans. But I'm still stuck at choosing the CPU and motherboard.

 

The AMD and Intel community is divided since the dawn of time. I am not a fan of either but I've watched many videos and see how AMD and Intel competes. It looks like that the AMD has all the advantages in the world in terms of upgradabilities, no doubt about that.  But Intel is more like automatic when it comes to configuring it for the first time and it can auto-boost to the highest frequencies when the game requires. And it doesn't have the thermal issues that AMD seems to have been plagued with.  So, to that end, one will go for the Z390 platforms.

 

Now if I choose Asus, it has TUF, ROG and PRIME series. And within them, they are further divided into Pro and Plus. Do you know what are the difference between TUF, ROG amd PRIME and PRo and Plus, which one is better?

[Fasauceome]

4 minutes ago, Tiffanysinyee said:

But Intel is more like automatic when it comes to configuring it for the first time and it can auto-boost to the highest frequencies when the game requires. And it doesn't have the thermal issues that AMD seems to have been plagued with.

AMD has no problems with configurations compared with Intel, on both platforms you boot, you enable XMP, and you're off to the races. They both boost to their high frequencies in the same way, and this generation, AMD has caught up in performance for a lot lower a price tag.

 

As for thermal issues, that was only true many years ago on the FX line of processors. Aside from the early hiccups of 3rd gen Ryzen idle temps, which have since been mitigated, AMD processors actually put out less heat and consume less power than Intel processors of the same configuration.

 

4 minutes ago, Tiffanysinyee said:

Now if I choose Asus, it has TUF, ROG and PRIME series. And within them, they are further divided into Pro and Plus. Do you know what are the difference between TUF, ROG amd PRIME and PRo and Plus, which one is better?

Asus segments their products many ways, but it all depends on what price you're spending. In certain price brackets, the Prime boards are great, and in others they're terrible. What kind of cost were you looking to drop on a motherboard and CPU combo, and what would you be using them for mainly?

[Tiffanysinyee]

1 minute ago, Fasauceome said:

AMD has no problems with configurations compared with Intel, on both platforms you boot, you enable XMP, and you're off to the races. They both boost to their high frequencies in the same way, and this generation, AMD has caught up in performance for a lot lower a price tag. As for thermal issues, that was only true many years ago on the FX line of processors. Aside from the early hiccups of 3rd gen Ryzen idle temps, which have since been mitigated, AMD processors actually put out less heat and consume less power than Intel processors of the same configuration.

 

Asus segments their products many ways, but it all depends on what price you're spending. In certain price brackets, the Prime boards are great, and in others they're terrible. What kind of cost were you looking to drop on a motherboard and CPU combo, and what would you be using them for mainly?

That's what I am trying to debate about, the thermals.  If a CPU is running hot, it must be working very hard just like a human physically working transferring energy from one form to another. It two CPUs running the same game but one of them is less heated up than the other that means the colder one is less powerful than the hotter one, agree? I don't mind hot CPU if they are working to deliver what they have to deliver, but not when they are idle. 

 

Well, my budget for CPU/Mobo combined is $450 give or take $20.

[Fasauceome]

Just now, Tiffanysinyee said:

It two CPUs running the same game but one of them is less heated up than the other that means the colder one is less powerful than the hotter one, agree?

Ryzen does the same amount of work and is less hot, because it is more efficient, so less energy is wasted doing the same task

 

1 minute ago, Tiffanysinyee said:

Well, my budget for CPU/Mobo combined is $450

this gets you some super nice options, assuming USD

PCPartPicker Part List

Type	Item	Price
CPU	AMD Ryzen 5 3600 3.6 GHz 6-Core Processor	$194.79 @ OutletPC
Motherboard	Asus TUF GAMING X570-PLUS ATX AM4 Motherboard	$189.79 @ SuperBiiz
	Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
	Total	$384.58
	Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-10-08 15:04 EDT-0400

The Ryzen 5 3600 is basically an i7 8700k, and this X570 TUF board gives you room to upgrade to any CPU you want, if you thirst for 16 cores then you got it.

[Tiffanysinyee]

1 minute ago, Fasauceome said:

Ryzen does the same amount of work and is less hot, because it is more efficient, so less energy is wasted doing the same task

 

this gets you some super nice options, assuming USD

PCPartPicker Part List

Type	Item	Price
CPU	AMD Ryzen 5 3600 3.6 GHz 6-Core Processor	$194.79 @ OutletPC
Motherboard	Asus TUF GAMING X570-PLUS ATX AM4 Motherboard	$189.79 @ SuperBiiz
	Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
	Total	$384.58
	Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-10-08 15:04 EDT-0400

The Ryzen 5 3600 is basically an i7 8700k, and this X570 TUF board gives you room to upgrade to any CPU you want, if you thirst for 16 cores then you got it.

Do you know anything about the Intel's IPC? Is it providing "raw" performance that R5 can't cope with?

[Fasauceome]

10 minutes ago, Tiffanysinyee said:

Do you know anything about the Intel's IPC? Is it providing "raw" performance that R5 can't cope with?

define raw? I suppose it can be broken down a bit more, let me know what you mean if you understand what I'm getting at.

 

There are things called instruction sets. Processors carry out instructions each clock cycle, and since Intel and AMD are competing brands, they carry out different amounts of instructions due to design differences (that's why AMD processors can have lower clock speeds but still keep up in performance, more instructions per clock). Intel is known to have really good AVX performance, which is the name of a specific instruction set, but AMD has done a lot to catch up with Intel's AVX performance. As it stands, AMD is the superior all rounder CPU for workstation use, and is no slouch when it comes to gaming, so if you're doing professional work mixed with gaming on a PC, there's not much reason to get Intel.

[Tiffanysinyee]

10 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

define raw? I suppose it can be broken down a bit more, let me know what you mean if you understand what I'm getting at.

 

There are things called instruction sets. Processors carry out instructions each clock cycle, and since Intel and AMD are competing brands, they carry out different amounts of instructions due to design differences (that's why AMD processors can have lower clock speeds but still keep up in performance, more instructions per clock). Intel is known to have really good AVX performance, which is the name of a specific instruction set, but AMD has done a lot to catch up with Intel's AVX performance. As it stands, AMD is the superior all rounder CPU for workstation use, and is no slouch when it comes to gaming, so if you're doing professional work mixed with gaming on a PC, there's not much reason to get Intel.

Forgotten to tell you I use it for gaming mainly, but of course I would like to stream or edit some recorded videos but that's not my priority so I can live with that.

 

Instruction Per Cycle IPC - Intel claims that their CPUs are capable of that and superior than AMD. I guess that explains why in most of the videos I have watched that Intel CPU is more engaged than AMD when they are being compared in a game; like Intel usage reads 98% while AMD usage reads merely 45%.

[Fasauceome]

4 minutes ago, Tiffanysinyee said:

Intel claims that their CPUs are capable of that and superior than AMD.

of course they'd say that, and AMD probably says the same thing about their CPUs

 

4 minutes ago, Tiffanysinyee said:

I guess that explains why in most of the videos I have watched that Intel CPU is more engaged than AMD when they are being compared in a game; like Intel usage reads 98% while AMD usage reads merely 45%.

AMD processors have a ton more cores and threads. Look at the 3700X vs the 9700k, the 9700K has 8 cores and 8 threads while the 3700X has 8 cores and 16 threads, so double. Having half the usage with the same performance makes sense to me. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning, "higher IPC = higher CPU usage percent"

[Mathieu9836]

1 minute ago, Fasauceome said:

of course they'd say that, and AMD probably says the same thing about their CPUs

 

AMD processors have a ton more cores and threads. Look at the 3700X vs the 9700k, the 9700K has 8 cores and 8 threads while the 3700X has 8 cores and 16 threads, so double. Having half the usage with the same performance makes sense to me. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning, "higher IPC = higher CPU usage percent"

8 cores and 16 threads doesnt not mean it make double the work, it uses its 8 cores to the max potential. Hyperthreading and SMT fill the ''blanks'' in workload.

[Fasauceome]

3 minutes ago, Mathieu9836 said:

8 cores and 16 threads doesnt not mean it make double the work, it uses its 8 cores to the max potential. Hyperthreading and SMT fill the ''blanks'' in workload.

well I was trying to give a more basic explanation, it may have been something like a 3900X vs a 9700K. With all those "benchmark" videos on youtube where the actual hardware isn't physically showcased, who knows what they're comparing?

[Mathieu9836]

1 minute ago, Fasauceome said:

well I was trying to give a more basic explanation, it may have been something like a 3900X vs a 9700K. With all those "benchmark" videos on youtube where the actual hardware isn't physically showcased, who knows what they're comparing?

I get your point. Both brands are making very good product right now, hope they will improve without rising their prices.

[Tiffanysinyee]

5 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

of course they'd say that, and AMD probably says the same thing about their CPUs

 

AMD processors have a ton more cores and threads. Look at the 3700X vs the 9700k, the 9700K has 8 cores and 8 threads while the 3700X has 8 cores and 16 threads, so double. Having half the usage with the same performance makes sense to me. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning, "higher IPC = higher CPU usage percent"

Yeah, obviously it's more engaging since it's executing many instruction sets at that particular instant than AMD does. And I've observed that AMD's temp is higher than Intel's at that instant. It is a 3600 vs 9600K. The Intel CPU shares with workload with the GPU but AMD doesn't. AMD is slacking whereas Intel is working hard. That's why the FPS is higher though not by that much.

[Kilrah]

1 hour ago, Tiffanysinyee said:

Sorry, I still don't get it.  If RX 5700 uses PCIe 4.0, and the bus allows data flowing that fast, how come the performance is not increased??

Becasue nothing today needs/is able to make use of that extra bandwidth between a GPU and the rest of the system.

[Fasauceome]

1 minute ago, Tiffanysinyee said:

Yeah, obviously it's more engaging since it's executing many instruction sets at that particular instant than AMD does.

I don't understand how this would be the case. The way you're describing it, it should be the other way around, or something like that. If a reading of 100% means the processor is being used up all the way, why would the processor's "level of engagement with instructions" be the percentage number? That's not how it works. And again

 

2 minutes ago, Tiffanysinyee said:

It is a 3600 vs 9600K

the 3600 has double the threads, so the usage percentage should not be the same in most cases in gaming.

 

3 minutes ago, Tiffanysinyee said:

The Intel CPU shares with workload with the GPU but AMD doesn't.

This also does not make sense. Games can't run on the CPU only (except for very special cases) and the 3600 does not have integrated graphics so it's forced to "share" the workload with the GPU

 

4 minutes ago, Tiffanysinyee said:

AMD is slacking whereas Intel is working hard. That's why the FPS is higher though not by that much.

this isn't the case since they're both completing the same task

[Tiffanysinyee]

7 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

well I was trying to give a more basic explanation, it may have been something like a 3900X vs a 9700K. With all those "benchmark" videos on youtube where the actual hardware isn't physically showcased, who knows what they're comparing?

You could be right...

You mentioned about 8700K but they aren't available now are they? I suppose 8700K is superseded by 9700K. It's almost US$350, but considering it's deployment for the next 5 years, it can be justified though R5 3600 is really less pricy and comes with a cooler.

 

Difficult choice...

 

Apart from Asus, is Gigabyte a good choice? Can it last?

[Tiffanysinyee]

5 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

Becasue nothing today needs/is able to make use of that extra bandwidth between a GPU and the rest of the system.

Got that!  

[Fasauceome]

1 minute ago, Tiffanysinyee said:

You mentioned about 8700K but they aren't available now are they? I suppose 8700K is superseded by 9700K. It's almost US$350, but considering it's deployment for the next 5 years, it can be justified though R5 3600 is really less pricy and comes with a cooler

well the price difference of the 8700k and the 9700k actually ended up being pretty small, but sometimes you'll catch a good sale on an 8700k that makes it a good value. again compared to a $200 3600, it's hard to justify.

 

1 minute ago, Tiffanysinyee said:

Apart from Asus, is Gigabyte a good choice? Can it last?

yes indeed. And actually, Asus is unfortunately a little infamous for their bad customer service, so be wary.

[Tiffanysinyee]

5 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

I don't understand how this would be the case. The way you're describing it, it should be the other way around, or something like that. If a reading of 100% means the processor is being used up all the way, why would the processor's "level of engagement with instructions" be the percentage number? That's not how it works. And again

 

the 3600 has double the threads, so the usage percentage should not be the same in most cases in gaming.

 

This also does not make sense. Games can't run on the CPU only (except for very special cases) and the 3600 does not have integrated graphics so it's forced to "share" the workload with the GPU

 

this isn't the case since they're both completing the same task

And that difference in percentage might be due to the idling o f the multi-thread part of the R5.