Planning A New Build in late January.

hdmi · Apr 10, 2024

Scannerman said:
I should have never looked at that i9-10900X. That chip is Win 11 compliant (unlike my 6900K) and it has a maximum of 48 lanes with 256 GB of system RAM. Plus it has greater bandwidth over all. If I were to upgrade my work station I'd probably go with one of these. The drawback is that I'd also have to get a new system board to use it. Bummer.

Intel® Core™ i9-10900X X-series Processor (19.25M Cache, 3.70 GHz) - Product Specifications | Intel

Intel® Core™ i9-10900X X-series Processor (19.25M Cache, 3.70 GHz) quick reference with specifications, features, and technologies.

www.intel.com

That one is limited by PCIe 3.0 + DMI 3.0 + DDR4. It's four years and a half old tech... older than the raptors. lol

Scannerman · Apr 10, 2024

hdmi said:
That one is limited by PCIe 3.0 + DMI 3.0 + DDR4. It's four years and a half old tech... older than the raptors. lol

True, but the chip is not yet discontinued and the reviews are excellent. I find bleeding edge early adoption isn't always the best course to take. In fact, the latest greatest tech on the market frequently fails. The reasons are manifest. Sometimes it's because not all the bugs have been worked out and more corrective measures need to be employed. Other times it's just a bad design and it has to be scrapped. BUT Something that is tried and tested and proven over time is generally more reliable. Nothing wrong with DDR4. Nothing wrong with PCIe 3. I have a PC with PCIe4 and to be honest I'm not all that impressed. My DDR3 work station wins hands down when it comes to reliability and stability.

My point was that if I'm thinking of spending 800 clams for a chip that only gives me 20 lanes I may as well get one that gives me 48 that is still in the same price range. Plus it handles twice the memory my current unit uses and offers even better bandwidth. Not bad for a chip that costs half of what my chip cost when it was first released.

Scannerman · Apr 10, 2024

hdmi said:
The DMI 4.0 lanes still count as an additional 8 lanes of PCIe 4.0.

I don't think it is precisely the same thing no matter how you count it. I'm following what the manufacturer is saying about their chip:

Scannerman · Apr 10, 2024

Lance1 said:
Yes BUT! Think of how much fun it'll be building that beast. And the new RAM you'll need because most likely new board will call for DD5 and you'll need at lest 128 GB. Also with this new board you'll need to upgrade the GPU as well. Also you'll need high speed NVME's and yes that is multiple. At least 4 at 4 TB. Now I'm missing something... Give me some time to thing on it.

lol Think I'll pass. I'm happy with what I have but I still have to admit that it is tempting. My X99 has served me well and I'm not seeing a whole lot about Win 11 that is so impressive I should have to run out and get a whole new system for it. TBH What I have right now is snappy, responsive, and fast enough for an old codger like me. I already have high speed NVMe to install in my PCIe4 system that I'm too lazy to rebuild. As for storage... Pick a volume.

And if this isn't enough remember that half my external drives are air gapped. lol

hdmi · Apr 10, 2024

Scannerman said:
True, but the chip is not yet discontinued and the reviews are excellent.

The reviews of the i9-10900X were not exactly impressive TBH. I don't want to brag about this particular subject, but weren't laptop CPUs supposed to be a lot slower than desktop CPUs especially in light of the fact that you are talking about a HEDT (high-end desktop) CPU? I mean, my i7-13650HX is ~40% faster overall than the i9-10900X, so... sorry. I think I will pass...

Scannerman said:
I find bleeding edge early adoption isn't always the best course to take.

Intel 14th Gen i9 is bleeding edge. I bought a 13th Gen, and, it isn't an i9.

Scannerman said:
In fact, the latest greatest tech on the market frequently fails. The reasons are manifest. Sometimes it's because not all the bugs have been worked out and more corrective measures need to be employed. Other times it's just a bad design and it has to be scrapped. BUT Something that is tried and tested and proven over time is generally more reliable. Nothing wrong with DDR4. Nothing wrong with PCIe 3. I have a PC with PCIe4 and to be honest I'm not all that impressed. My DDR3 work station wins hands down when it comes to reliability and stability.

I've been testing my Asus TUF Gaming F16 (2024) over the past 3 weeks. It's a nice laptop, it's still every bit as cool as they wanted people to believe back when they introduced it at CES Las Vegas 2024 in January. Everything works, and so does the ROG backpack that I got as a free gift from Asus. My only gripe was that the glue that Intel uses on their Core i7 sticker didn't want to come off that easily. lol

Scannerman said:
My point was that if I'm thinking of spending 800 clams for a chip that only gives me 20 lanes

28. That plus the fact that 16 of them are PCIe 5.0 lanes so each of these 16 lanes is 4 times faster than a PCIe 3.0 lane, and the other 12 lanes are PCIe 4.0 so each of these 12 lanes is twice as fast as a PCIe 3.0 lane. 16×4 + 12×2 = 88

Scannerman said:
I may as well get one that gives me 48 that is still in the same price range.

All 48 of these lanes are only PCIe 3.0 whereas the Z790 platform still offers the theoretical equivalent (in pure terms of maximum theoretical bandwidth) of 88 lanes of PCIe 3.0 nevertheless.

Scannerman said:
Plus it handles twice the memory my current unit uses and offers even better bandwidth. Not bad for a chip that costs half of what my chip cost when it was first released.

Sure, the i9-10900X can do up to 256GB of RAM and 94 GB/s versus "only" 192GB and 89.6 GB/s for the i9-14900K (or the i7-14700K, which is already one heck of a lot better than good enough for most...). But then, are you really going to use that much RAM? And if you really are going to, is it really worth the sacrifice of losing all the other benefits that Z790 chipset is capable to provide? What specific motherboard (brand and model) would you choose that would satisfy your needs?

Scannerman said:
I don't think it is precisely the same thing no matter how you count it. I'm following what the manufacturer is saying about their chip:

View attachment 93010

Of course it's not the same thing. Like I already tried to explain, it's simply better.

Scannerman · Apr 10, 2024

hdmi said:
The reviews of the i9-10900X were not exactly impressive TBH. I don't want to brag about this particular subject, but weren't laptop CPUs supposed to be a lot slower than desktop CPUs especially in light of the fact that you are talking about a HEDT (high-end desktop) CPU? I mean, my i7-13650HX is ~40% faster overall than the i9-10900X, so... sorry. I think I will pass...

Intel 14th Gen i9 is bleeding edge. I bought a 13th Gen, and, it isn't an i9.

I've been testing my Asus TUF Gaming F16 (2024) over the past 3 weeks. It's a nice laptop, it's still every bit as cool as they wanted people to believe back when they introduced it at CES Las Vegas 2024 in January. Everything works, and so does the ROG backpack that I got as a free gift from Asus. My only gripe was that the glue that Intel uses on their Core i7 sticker didn't want to come off that easily. lol

28. That plus the fact that 16 of them are PCIe 5.0 lanes so each of these 16 lanes is 4 times faster than a PCIe 3.0 lane, and the other 12 lanes are PCIe 4.0 so each of these 12 lanes is twice as fast as a PCIe 3.0 lane. 16×4 + 12×2 = 88

All 48 of these lanes are only PCIe 3.0 whereas the Z790 platform still offers the theoretical equivalent (in pure terms of maximum theoretical bandwidth) of 88 lanes of PCIe 3.0 nevertheless.

Sure, the i9-10900X can do up to 256GB of RAM and 94 GB/s versus "only" 192GB and 89.6 GB/s for the i9-14900K (or the i7-14700K, which is already one heck of a lot better than good enough for most...). But then, are you really going to use that much RAM? And if you really are going to, is it really worth the sacrifice of losing all the other benefits that Z790 chipset is capable to provide? What specific motherboard (brand and model) would you choose that would satisfy your needs?

Of course it's not the same thing. Like I already tried to explain, it's simply better.

Evidently we haven't been reading the same reviews. Sure, we can compare apples and oranges all day but when you say "faster" that assumes many things. I don't even think I could do the workload with your i7-13650HX that I can do with my desktop. I'd likely bog it down as it wouldn't even have the system memory to handle some of the stuff I do. But again, this is about user preference and using the right tool for the right job.

The i9 10900X is a 7th. gen refresh so it's definitely NOT bleeding edge. Not even close. I was comparing my practically vintage work station to this and comparing it to a 20 lane chip. If Intel says it's 20 lanes then it's likely 20 lanes no matter how much anyone wants to trump it up to make it something else. I have PCIe 4.0 on another build and frankly, I'm really not all that impressed. The theoretical argument is dubious at best when applied to real time working environments. You likely know this already. So 20 lanes. Fancy lanes, sure. Still, 20 lanes.

When I first built my work station with my meagre 128 GB of RAM I was hit by the same old worn out questions you're asking me. I have never regretted getting this much RAM and yes, many times I've put it to good use. In fact, I'm convinced that 256 GB wouldn't hurt at all if I could run it but this platform can't so I just have to be happy with what I have. Yes, I'm going to use that much RAM and I have already and I likely will again.

I've been told to get a Xeon for the kind of things I do but I also do a lot of standard stuff so an i9 or an i7 suits me better. To approach this with a broad, brushstroke statement that one platform is "simply better" than another is rather over-simplistic IMO. Better in what way? Better for whom? There is no platform that is better over all for everyone.

Anyway, I stated beforehand that this chip was tempting for me and now I just discovered that I can get it for around $300 US if I look in the right places. That makes it even more tempting. Alas, the prospect of getting a new system board and all the stuff that goes with it is not so tempting. So I'll settle for what I have even if it isn't Windows 11 compliant like the i9 10900X.

pparks1 · Apr 11, 2024

Scannerman said:
When I first built my work station with my meagre 128 GB of RAM I was hit by the same old worn out questions you're asking me. I have never regretted getting this much RAM and yes, many times I've put it to good use. In fact, I'm convinced that 256 GB wouldn't hurt at all if I could run it but this platform can't so I just have to be happy with what I have. Yes, I'm going to use that much RAM and I have already and I likely will again.

I've never had a need for that much ram at home. I have 64GB and that's plenty for my VM's that i use in my lab. At work I have machines with 6TB of RAM and Petabytes of storage....so these configs with 128 and 256GB of RAM just aren't that impressive to me.

Scannerman · Apr 11, 2024

pparks1 said:
I've never had a need for that much ram at home. I have 64GB and that's plenty for my VM's that i use in my lab. At work I have machines with 6TB of RAM and Petabytes of storage....so these configs with 128 and 256GB of RAM just aren't that impressive to me.

Have you ever done file transfers with Ram Disc?

hdmi · Apr 12, 2024

Scannerman said:
Evidently we haven't been reading the same reviews. Sure, we can compare apples and oranges all day but when you say "faster" that assumes many things. I don't even think I could do the workload with your i7-13650HX that I can do with my desktop. I'd likely bog it down as it wouldn't even have the system memory to handle some of the stuff I do. But again, this is about user preference and using the right tool for the right job.

To anyone who might still be reading this particular part of the discussion, there's no way of guessing how much RAM you might need if you don't give us any details whatsoever about what it is that you mean when you say things like "some of the stuff I do". I use a Ramdisk all the time, and was using it all the time even before I had 16GB of RAM, which I'm sure everyone can agree still isn't that much RAM either. A lot also depends on what data needs to be put on the Ramdisk versus not, and when. The i7-13650HX does have substantially more CPU processing power on tap than the i9-10900X, and actually even beats the OP's i5-12600KF (non overclocked) in real-world tasks by some margin, and does so with not very many exceptions. I know that it's only a synthetic benchmark, but the i7-13650HX scores about 21,000 in multi-threaded Cinebench R23 so, the difference is quite big enough to conclude that it's going to be a faster CPU than the i5-12600KF, and, the Passmark score also confirms this conclusion.

So then, does this mean that I have a HELT (high-end laptop) CPU? In addition, the mobile variant of the GeForce RTX 4060 is not too far behind the desktop (also non overclocked) variant of it BTW. I apologize for spoiling all the fun... which I did on purpose. But I still want my extra brownie points! lol

Scannerman said:
The i9 10900X is a 7th. gen refresh so it's definitely NOT bleeding edge.

It is what can be best described as a remnant of yore. Aged like fine milk.

Scannerman said:
Not even close. I was comparing my practically vintage work station to this and comparing it to a 20 lane chip.

28

Scannerman said:
If Intel says it's 20 lanes then it's likely 20 lanes no matter how much anyone wants to trump it up to make it something else. I have PCIe 4.0 on another build and frankly, I'm really not all that impressed. The theoretical argument is dubious at best when applied to real time working environments. You likely know this already. So 20 lanes. Fancy lanes, sure. Still, 20 lanes.

The 8x DMI 4.0 lanes are pink elephants offering an additional equivalent of 8 lanes of PCIe 4.0 bandwidth. It uses the Z790 chipset to make that extra bandwidth available (with gremlins), which boils down to the fact that it has to share this extra bandwidth with all the other I/O features (SATA/USB/network/SST/...) that have been implemented through the PCH. Depending what are the hardware limitations of the Z790 motherboard used, and also depending what PCIe expansion cards are installed on it (and how much of the extra bandwidth will be shared with the other I/O features) it can be possible to achieve, e.g., 2x additional NVMe 4.0 x4 with only some minimum losses.

In short, even with some data being transferred e.g. through USB and/or via the network, it's not very often going to hinder the SSD performance in any way that can be noticed in the real world typically, as data transfers usually occur in bursts. This also is part why servers and heavy workstations don't necessarily always use 4 lanes for each NVMe SSD, as they often can get away with using only 2 lanes per M.2 NVMe slot (on some of the slots at least). Another important reason why that is (among various other criteria) is that server or server-like systems often tend to rely more heavily on the benefits of SLC NAND to sustain and/or to uphold those specific performance factors that relate to SSD storage.

Scannerman said:
When I first built my work station with my meagre 128 GB of RAM I was hit by the same old worn out questions you're asking me. I have never regretted getting this much RAM and yes, many times I've put it to good use. In fact, I'm convinced that 256 GB wouldn't hurt at all if I could run it but this platform can't so I just have to be happy with what I have. Yes, I'm going to use that much RAM and I have already and I likely will again.

I've been told to get a Xeon for the kind of things I do but I also do a lot of standard stuff so an i9 or an i7 suits me better. To approach this with a broad, brushstroke statement that one platform is "simply better" than another is rather over-simplistic IMO. Better in what way? Better for whom? There is no platform that is better over all for everyone.

Again, as long as you tell us nothing about what you use it for (and how you use it) besides hollow statements like "many times I've put it to good use", you still definately aren't making any real sense. Just to put a few things back into perspective, even though it certainly is true that synthetic benchmarks aren't a fully accurate representation of performance in the real world, the Passmark (CPU Mark) score of the i7-13700K is more than double that of the i9-10900X, and, although prices always can vary of course, even the "expensive" i9-13900K still scores a whopping 2.8 times better value (CPU Mark divided by $Price) than this same i9-10900X.

Scannerman said:
Anyway, I stated beforehand that this chip was tempting for me and now I just discovered that I can get it for around $300 US if I look in the right places. That makes it even more tempting. Alas, the prospect of getting a new system board and all the stuff that goes with it is not so tempting. So I'll settle for what I have even if it isn't Windows 11 compliant like the i9 10900X.

That was my whole point to begin with. We live in a hyper-capitalist world. The pink elephants always win. The snakes are hissing at the nude customer's crown.

Scannerman · Apr 12, 2024

Umm.. yeah. 20 lanes.

pparks1 · Apr 12, 2024

Scannerman said:
Have you ever done file transfers with Ram Disc?

I have used Ramdisk stuff in the past. The one I believe I used was IMDisk. I used to run a small VM in a 30GB RAM disk on a box at work for quick testing back in the days when I only had spinning disk and that made a massive improvement in performance. However, since getting SSD's and now NVMe drives, i feel they provide more than adequate performance to host these types of VM's and using my RAM for it isn't really advantageous in any way that it would benefit me.

Scannerman · Apr 12, 2024

pparks1 said:
I have used Ramdisk stuff in the past. The one I believe I used was IMDisk. I used to run a small VM in a 30GB RAM disk on a box at work for quick testing back in the days when I only had spinning disk and that made a massive improvement in performance. However, since getting SSD's and now NVMe drives, i feel they provide more than adequate performance to host these types of VM's and using my RAM for it isn't really advantageous in any way that it would benefit me.

Fair enough. It does, however, make for fast large file transfers and it doesn't peter out like NVMe.

pparks1 · Apr 12, 2024

Scannerman said:
Fair enough. It does, however, make for fast large file transfers and it doesn't peter out like NVMe.

I can agree, but I can also say that I almost never copy a single huge data file that causes my NVMe to completely overload it's DRAM cache and peter out. Clearly other people may have different sized files and do different things with their computer, so their mileage may vary.

I'm copying a 12GB ISO file from my E drive (SATA SSD that maxes out around 530MB/sec) to my C drive (NVMe) and I'm getting a solid copy across the board. ~500MB/sec as expected...the SATA read speed is the limiting factor.

Now, If I copy that from my C partition to my D partition (it's the same physical NVMe..1 only have 1 PCIe Gen 4 in this box), I get a solid copy as well without exhausting the DRAM cache on my NVMe drive.

I'm going to reboot to see what impact windows caching may have had on that copy, because 4.5GB/sec seems too fast for my SN850. Be back with an update.

Okay, new copy after a reboot and this is more like I would expect.. Right around 2.3GB/sec, but my NVMe has no problems with this.

End of the day, i just don't find myself shuffling around super huge files all the time. If I only do it on occasion and the copy takes a few extra seconds...i can live with that. I'm not going to buy 256GB or 512GB of RAM just go get a super huge RAM drive for insanely fast file copies. For me, getting a second NVMe drive would help when copying between the drives.....but even then it's too infrequent that I have any desire to spend the money.

Scannerman · Apr 12, 2024

pparks1 said:
End of the day, i just don't find myself shuffling around super huge files all the time. If I only do it on occasion and the copy takes a few extra seconds...i can live with that. I'm not going to buy 256GB or 512GB of RAM just go get a super huge RAM drive for insanely fast file copies. For me, getting a second NVMe drive would help when copying between the drives.....but even then it's too infrequent that I have any desire to spend the money.

With speeds like that I'd be of the same persuasion. Good job! Nonetheless I've never regretted getting the RAM I have and admittedly, I bought it brand new, sealed in the box, at roughly half the retail price. It was one of those rare opportunities one hears of but almost never gets. Every now and then I am reminded of how good it is to have this much system RAM. I do however, have one story that makes me wonder a little although it is humorous. I was taking a nap and had left my PC on when my 10 year old decided she would help herself to my PC and convert it into a mine craft server. I didn't even notice until the following day when I was looking at something else that something didn't seem quite right. A quick dip into my task manager told the story. All my daughters play mine craft. I don't.

When I discovered 'who dunnit' I asked her why she did that to my PC when she had her own PC to set it up on. Her reply: "Dad, you have so much memory I thought it would be okay if I put some of it to use." All three of these little rascals had conspired to make use of my PC without my consent.

Needless to say we had a little chat about proprietary rights and trust. It's humorous to look back upon now, but at the time I wasn't very impressed. I'll give the girls credit for innovation but my PC belongs to me.

Anyway, I don't have 256 or 512 GB of system RAM. I only have 128 GB and from time to time I'm only too glad I have it. As my daughters also had discovered on the sly is it can come in handy for networking too. I've seen it use as much as 67 GB actively more than few times now. I don't need more. Some people do. What I do with my PC is my own personal business and I need not justify myself to anyone here. Some people really can make use of this much system RAM and there is nothing unusual about having this much RAM in a work station.

Those who cannot figure out why anyone would make use of this much RAM obviously don't need it. Those who have it are likely to learn why it's a good thing to have. No further elaboration is required.

Scannerman · Apr 13, 2024

Two Banks (64x2) of this Corsair Dominator Platinum B die system RAM has served me very, very well. No regrets.

hdmi · Apr 13, 2024

Scannerman said:
What I do with my PC is my own personal business and I need not justify myself to anyone here. Some people really can make use of this much system RAM and there is nothing unusual about having this much RAM in a work station.

Those who cannot figure out why anyone would make use of this much RAM obviously don't need it. Those who have it are likely to learn why it's a good thing to have. No further elaboration is required.

So then, you have never put it to good use... just like the children say. It all makes perfect sense to me now so, thanks for explaining it!

Scannerman · Apr 13, 2024

You are quite welcome to think what you will. You are as entitled to your erroneous thinking as I am.

Scannerman · Apr 13, 2024

So.. umm... only 20 lanes, huh? Pity.

TechnoMage2021 · Apr 13, 2024

"Gee Dad, it's a Wurlitzer!"
And I was once asked why I need the whopping 16GB of ram that I installed in this PC.
I probably don't need that much, but it was "ON SALE"!

128 GB of ram? Dang! That bigger than my SSD!

Y'all have fun now, Y'hear?

TM