Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community - Reply to Topic
Thread: Upgrade of 5930K on Asus Rampage V Extreme - 6900k or 5960x Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
02-20-2020 01:51 PM
ThrashZone Hi,
Yes there was on rog forum a ddr4 test that loved cache oc a lot and latency when down as cache went up.
02-20-2020 12:39 PM
8051
Quote: Originally Posted by ThrashZone View Post
Hi,
Good example story changes once you crank up the cache a little to 30 instead of a lame 24-27 i believe 79..x was and the same for 99..x too not sure what 10...x is not sure it changes either

5930k was at least 32 cache max on auto but it can go up to 40 cache 38 with mild voltage increase to say 1.15v where as cache on your other example is whack higher on 9900k where as it's cache voltage is nearly the same as the core voltage and also matching core multiplier too !!!

But often it's not core turbo multiplier at all but cache multiplier that makes a chip game well or not.
Coffelake has a cache overclocking advantage relative to LGA2011. I have the cache on my 9700k running at 4.8 Ghz, but there are mods that can get LGA2011 uncore to 4.5 Ghz. if you're willing to use incredibly high uncore/ring voltages (1.5V+).

Faster cache/uncore also brings up memory bandwidth (i.e. even if the memory speed/timings are left unchanged).
02-20-2020 06:42 AM
ThrashZone
Quote: Originally Posted by Nizzen View Post
This is very hard for someone to understand.

Example: 7980xe sux for gaming at stock settings. 4500-4700 all core and tweaked 4000mhz memory resulting in 50ns memorylatency vs ~80ns stock settings and slow memory. The cpu is beating most cpu's in gaming except 9900k overclocked

Beating Ryzen 3900x/3950x overclocked easy.
Hi,
Good example story changes once you crank up the cache a little to 30 instead of a lame 24-27 i believe 79..x was and the same for 99..x too not sure what 10...x is not sure it changes either

5930k was at least 32 cache max on auto but it can go up to 40 cache 38 with mild voltage increase to say 1.15v where as cache on your other example is whack higher on 9900k where as it's cache voltage is nearly the same as the core voltage and also matching core multiplier too !!!

But often it's not core turbo multiplier at all but cache multiplier that makes a chip game well or not.
02-20-2020 06:28 AM
Nizzen
Quote: Originally Posted by ThrashZone View Post
Hi,
The problem with gaming performance comparisons usually is they use default clocks which is not the way anyone games or benchmarks.
This is very hard for someone to understand.

Example: 7980xe sux for gaming at stock settings. 4500-4700 all core and tweaked 4000mhz memory resulting in 50ns memorylatency vs ~80ns stock settings and slow memory. The cpu is beating most cpu's in gaming except 9900k overclocked

Beating Ryzen 3900x/3950x overclocked easy.
02-20-2020 03:08 AM
ThrashZone Hi,
The problem with gaming performance comparisons usually is they use default clocks which is not the way anyone games or benchmarks.
02-20-2020 12:44 AM
8051
Quote: Originally Posted by BroadPwns View Post
You're scaring him . I find it amusing that somebody found Ryzen 2600 faster than 5930k anywhere, while 5930k easily competes with 8700k @5GHZ .
Not that I've seen a 5930k overclocked, all up (core and uncore), even with its memory at 3200Mhz can't keep up with a 8700k overclocked, all up (core and uncore) with its memory at 4000+ Mhz.

In this review the 5960x comes behind the 8700k in all games benchmarks:
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_page...review,21.html

It would probably be even worse for the 5960x if a more powerful GPU was used.

But when my 5820k at 4.4 Ghz. died my 9700k at 5.1 Ghz. only made a significant difference in minimum FPS in Metro: Last Light, GTA IV and GTA V.

I'm surprised you would back the Haswell-E architecture over anything because I thought the Broadwell-C was better for gaming across the board?
02-19-2020 11:02 PM
BroadPwns
Quote: Originally Posted by pewpewlazer View Post
You're off your rocker if you think a 300-500mhz frequency advantage and coffee lake vs haswell architectural improvements are "nullified" by quad channel memory and a larger cache. Even at identical clocks, 8700k vs 6c/12t Haswell-E is going to be a tie at best unless you had some very niche workload that managed to utilize said quad channel memory and larger cache (if you know what that is, please share).

https://www.techspot.com/review/1558...-test-in-2018/





Direct comparison in BF1, GTA V, Ghost Recon Wildlands, Rise of the Tomb Raider +
with The Witcher 3 timestamp. I'd say it keeps up with it.
02-19-2020 08:50 PM
Nizzen
Quote: Originally Posted by bomerr View Post
does anyone still do that? game at 1080p? isn't everyone 1440p now?
I guess for some competitive gamers 8700k would make sense but they would prob be on the 9900k.
1440p is the new 1080p with 2080ti in many titles, and next gen gpu's does even more titles cpubound in 1440p.

Even 3440x1440 in BF V is a bit cpubound with 2080ti.

1080p 240hz monitors is pretty popular, so there must be plenty of people using it

Maby more people on 1080 240hz than 4k monitors...
02-19-2020 04:57 PM
Kalm_Traveler
Quote: Originally Posted by BroadPwns View Post
Clock difference is nullified thanks to Quad Channel and larger cache.
Quote: Originally Posted by bomerr View Post
does anyone still do that? game at 1080p? isn't everyone 1440p now?
I guess for some competitive gamers 8700k would make sense but they would prob be on the 9900k.
Quote: Originally Posted by BroadPwns View Post
Vast majority of people use 1080p monitors and modern gear still struggle to keep that 120/144FPS in most titles.
Aye I was going to say just looking at the Steam report it seems 1080p is still the most common resolution people game at.

I got an 1440p ultrawide back in 2016 and now have a 3840 x 1600 screen on my main rig but even a 9900ks @ 5.3ghz + Kingpin 2080 Ti can't keep 100+ fps at all times in every game on that old 3440 x 1440 screen.
02-19-2020 04:54 PM
pewpewlazer
Quote: Originally Posted by BroadPwns View Post
Clock difference is nullified thanks to Quad Channel and larger cache.
You're off your rocker if you think a 300-500mhz frequency advantage and coffee lake vs haswell architectural improvements are "nullified" by quad channel memory and a larger cache. Even at identical clocks, 8700k vs 6c/12t Haswell-E is going to be a tie at best unless you had some very niche workload that managed to utilize said quad channel memory and larger cache (if you know what that is, please share).

https://www.techspot.com/review/1558...-test-in-2018/
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off