X470 only has PCIe Gen 2, no wander it has half the speed than the CPU lanes. Nobody will use the chipset lanes when you can use the Gen 3.0 lanes from the CPU.
Ironically this really only seemed to be a problem for AMD which has more PCIe lanes from the CPU.
Pretty much the opposite of the original claim surrounding Intels lack of PCIe lanes from the CPU.
Intels chipset based lanes actually ran just as fast as AMDs CPU lanes. It's only AMDs chipset lanes that slow down significantly.
X470 only has PCIe Gen 2, no wander it has half the speed than the CPU lanes. Nobody will use the chipset lanes when you can use the Gen 3.0 lanes from the CPU.
The devil's in the details which I've noticed you don't like probing.That doesn't alter my point.
Someone brought up Intels Lower CPU PCIe lane count, and the supposed detrimental effect on it's storage access speed as a slam against Intel CPUs.
Turns out, the reality was essentially the opposite.
The devil's in the details which I've noticed you don't like probing.
They purposely only tested one NVME drive in their tests. Intel hangs its pcie 3.0 extensions beyond the first two slots pcie slots (x16 or x8/x8) off of their chipset. The chipset is DMI 3.0 (3.93GB/s) .. PCIE 3.0 x4 is (3.94GB/s). Yes, the whole chipset is serviced by a PCIE 3.0 x4 link. The problem/slight of hand is obvious. By only testing one NVME drive, they keep the shared channel from being saturated. This is why AMD hung the NVME off of a dedicated x4 slot directly connected to the CPU. Only the 2nd one is serviced through a much slower link through the chipset. My understanding there is that the interface is gimped down to PCIE 2.0 for AMD's X370 to ensure it doesn't slam the chipset's connection when active. The test gave the expected results. The detrimental effects in storage access speed on Intel come when you begin using other chipset features (something the reviewers here purposely avoided) and didn't detail. This doesn't happen using the proper M.2 slot on AMD's board because its directly connected to the CPU.
INTEL Z370 CHIPSET Connectivity :
Intel went full retard on oversubscription through the chipset.
AMD decided to recognize NVME as a first class citizen and give it a dedicated x4 connection.
In AMD's case, through the chipset, you have a connection to a second M.2 but you're going to pay a performance penalty so you don't saturate the chipset link where tons of other peripherals hang off. The consumer can decide which model works best for them but the linked review is a joke and flat out omits these details... Such is the case for information curated for the masses.
It's funny that whenever it comes to slamming Intel over some supposed deficit, that depends more on hearsay than evidence, the same names come up over and over again.
Instead of evidence, we just get your claims that "Intel went full retard", which not what I consider in any way convincing.
Instead of long winded anti-Intel diatribes. How about some evidence.
He gave your full of evidence, how about answering his technical claims rather than posting an erratic and unrelated post..?.
What happens when someone wants to run 2 NVMe drives off Z370?Intels chipset based lanes actually ran just as fast as AMDs CPU lanes. It's only AMDs chipset lanes that slow down significantly.
What happens when someone wants to run 2 NVMe drives off Z370?
> Provides ample evidence and a diagramIt's funny that whenever it comes to slamming Intel over some supposed deficit, that depends more on hearsay than evidence, the same names come up over and over again.
Instead of evidence, we just get your claims that "Intel went full retard", which not what I consider in any way convincing.
Instead of long winded anti-Intel diatribes. How about some evidence.
I bet it's no worse than what happens to the NVMe drive in the second slot on AMD X470:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1646-storage-performance-intel-z370-vs-amd-x470/
> Provides ample evidence and a diagram
> Peter Scott ignores it and does what he claims I'm doing
Wew lad...
This continues all the way up into their X299 HEDT platform :
I would like to take you out to dinner one evening Mr.Scott.Uhh. No. You made claims.
I linked the benchmarks showing a direct relevant comparison. IOW Evidence.
Ah, classic ub4ty. Theory crafting and goalpost shifting. Never evidence.
That doesn't alter my point.
Someone brought up Intels Lower CPU PCIe lane count, and the supposed detrimental effect on it's storage access speed as a slam against Intel CPUs.
Turns out, the reality was essentially the opposite.
The reality that you dont understand is that if you use 2x drives at the same time,
In Intels Z370/390 the speed will be half on both drives vs a single drive.
In AMDs X370/470 one drive will continue to have full speed and only the second drive will have half the speed.
Got it now ???
Defend Intel for every flaw, you have to do it !The desktop PC use case for saturating more than one fast NVMe drive?
The desktop PC use case for saturating more than one fast NVMe drive?
And what of those of us who are on BOTH platforms ? I have 9 Intel systems, and 7 AMD systems, and core counts wise, more Intel cores total.It's funny how the general feeling of those on the Intel platform is actually positive against the negative stance of those who won't touch an Intel chip with a 10-foot pole. Interesting.
How old are your Intel systems, and has the manufacturer released bios updates against spectre, etc?And what of those of us who are on BOTH platforms ? I have 9 Intel systems, and 7 AMD systems, and core counts wise, more Intel cores total.
Reality and truth are sometimes hard to accept for some.
Most are socket 2011-3, Xeon E5-2683v3. I also have a 2600k, 4790k, 6700k, Xeon 5570 and a socket 775 Xeon thats not turned on anymore.How old are your Intel systems, and has the manufacturer released bios updates against spectre, etc?
It's funny how the general feeling of those on the Intel platform is actually positive against the negative stance of those who won't touch an Intel chip with a 10-foot pole. Interesting.
Same here. I have just as many intel rigs as I have Ryzen rigs. Albeit, the core counts are different.I rode Intel all the way up to quad core/8thread. AMD won on 8core+ so I switched over. What one would expect for someone who has zero bias. I switch teams whenever there is better value as any mindful consumer should. I gave AMD's new RX Vega video card a shot but the driver/dev stack was shot for my purposes, so I sold it like a hot cake and went straight back to Nvidia. The pure intel bots don't understand this.And what of those of us who are on BOTH platforms ? I have 9 Intel systems, and 7 AMD systems, and core counts wise, more Intel cores total.
Reality and truth are sometimes hard to accept for some.
Also, a big trend that has moved down to the desktop space is tiered storage where you have a caching policy across RAM/NVME/SSD/HDD. AMD released software named FuzeDrive. Windows Server has it built in and there are tons of other software packages. Meanwhile, this was the whole thinking behind Intel's Optane drives. You can easily begin to saturate PCIE 3.0 x4<->RAM with a cache policy.Many, you have one M2.0 drive and then you have a Secondary large SATA/USB 3.0/1 drive for storage. The moment you are going to transfer/copy from one to the other or to a third drive, your primary M2.0 on Intel Z370/390 will have half the speed.
And as prices going down, you may start with a single M2.0 drive but get a second or even third down the road. Then your Intel Z370/390 platform starts to have a serious bottleneck.
Thats where all my E5-2683v3 Xeons came from, until Ryzen hit. They were $350 on ebay and great performers. But now my 8 core Ryzens are stomping their 14 cores, so Ryzen it is. Oh, and with less power draw.Same here. I have just as many intel rigs as I have Ryzen rigs. Albeit, the core counts are different.I rode Intel all the way up to quad core/8thread. AMD won on 8core+ so I switched over. What one would expect for someone who has zero bias. I switch teams whenever there is better value as any mindful consumer should. I gave AMD's new RX Vega video card a shot but the driver/dev stack was shot for my purposes, so I sold it like a hot cake and went straight back to Nvidia. The pure intel bots don't understand this.
Yep, I'm a big fan of buying enterprise hand me down hardware when they do big upgrades.I was all over the enterprise Xeon build for my upcoming build and then Ryzen came out. Then AMD went scorched earth and released Thread ripper... My God, it's like the heavens parted when Thread ripper was released. It was exactly what I had been dreaming of and needed for my upcoming build. The far lower power draw and the insane affordability were a godsend. It changed the face of computing IMO. I recall Nvidia even thanking AMD for changing the game with regards to far more PCIE slots. A whole new range of possibilities exists because of the Ryzen architecture.Thats where all my E5-2683v3 Xeons came from, until Ryzen hit. They were $350 on ebay and great performers. But now my 8 core Ryzens are stomping their 14 cores, so Ryzen it is. Oh, and with less power draw.
It's funny how the general feeling of those on the Intel platform is actually positive against the negative stance of those who won't touch an Intel chip with a 10-foot pole. Interesting.
The fact of Intel catching up on core count really brings out the AMD partisans to denigrate Intels part before it arrives.