Is Intel's X299 Platform Better than the X99? @ [H]

Discussion in 'Intel Processors' started by Kyle_Bennett, Aug 11, 2017.

  1. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ardOCP Motherboard Editor

    Messages:
    51,217
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    It isn't a need as much as a want. Nothing is ever too fast or fast enough when it comes to computing.
     
    Skyblue likes this.
  2. sparks

    sparks 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,027
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2004
    Thanks for this Kyle.
    I am still running a 2600 at 4.4 and I keep saying I want to upgrade. When and if there is something good to upgrade to, on that day I will.

    I can get more with a GPU than anything intel or amd are offering.
    And I will when I see a GPU that is an upgrade with a fair price.
     
  3. Hagrid

    Hagrid Kyle's Boo

    Messages:
    6,042
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    This is where I am at, but it doesn't seem like the 1080ti's are coming down in price much......

    I did think about a matx x299 system for a backup computer I am building. I will see how this little itx AM1 5350 quad cpu works.
     
  4. darkdashing

    darkdashing n00bie

    Messages:
    26
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Just makes me worried how long the x299 will be around for; investing in that is pricey but will it be more future proof than building a z270 system?
     
  5. Hagrid

    Hagrid Kyle's Boo

    Messages:
    6,042
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Long as any Intel system...... Not too long.. :)
     
  6. sparks

    sparks 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,027
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2004
    intel has had a long run of reinventing the same thing over and over and calling it new.
     
  7. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ardOCP Motherboard Editor

    Messages:
    51,217
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    X99 launched over three years ago. We've had two processor generations on it and a relatively long life cycle. Alternatively, AMD used some sockets for many years but you practically needed a flow chart to understand what was backwards compatible and what wasn't. Those platforms had extra complexities introduced such as motherboards without VRM's capable of supporting all CPUs. Microcode support in BIOS was a nightmare and led to a host of other problems we've not had to deal with on the Intel side. Designing your processor to work on a 4 or 5 year old motherboard design is not a good idea. You end up being constrained to the electrical and firmware of an ancient design, thus limiting the power savings and potential to move forward on the CPU's design.
     
  8. Hagrid

    Hagrid Kyle's Boo

    Messages:
    6,042
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Yeah, but it was nice to just plop a chip in and go.
     
  9. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ardOCP Motherboard Editor

    Messages:
    51,217
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    In theory, of course.. The reality was pretty far from that at times. First, you needed to make sure that the board would support the new CPU. It was fine if you were upgrading an existing system but another matter if you were building a new system. if you were buying a board for a new build, you could potentially have had issues updating the motherboard to support a CPU the older BIOS didn't originally support. You also had to check and ensure that your board had VRM's that could support higher TDP processors. Then, older motherboards might not support all the C-states or power savings features of newer CPU's. We saw that with the 890FX chipset based motherboards. Having microcode that could support two or three generations of CPUs often left motherboards working better with newer or older CPUs, but not necessarily the CPUs you wanted to use. Using an older motherboard with a newer CPU and vice versa could create problems with systems resuming after suspend, colt boot issues or other problems.

    It wasn't as simple as "plopping a chip in and going."
     
  10. sirmonkey1985

    sirmonkey1985 [H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010

    Messages:
    19,495
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    when i originally was looking at building an intel based system i felt like i needed a flow chart just to figure out what boards supported ivy bridge, skylake, kabylake, what chipsets were actually better than the other one even though one might be newer.. turned into such a pain in the ass i gave up bothering with it and just waited another year for ryzen. some of the blame i put on newegg and amazon for their half ass description pages making having to search for manufacture spec's for every board i was looking at even more of a pain.
     
  11. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ardOCP Motherboard Editor

    Messages:
    51,217
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    It's not that difficult. Pair the newest chipset with the newest CPU. This has almost universally been true. You'd have to go back to the i820 fiasco to find a scenario where newer wasn't better. Before that, you'd have to go to i440BX. Since then, newer chipsets have always been the better buy, especially once memory controllers became integrated into the CPU. The chipset provides I/O connectivity and feature sets. It has virtually nothing to do with performance. The CPU's you'll find at Microcenter and the like are usually the newest ones. LGA 1151 or LGA 2066 are printed on the boxes and in the specs of the CPU's on any online site. The same is true of the motherboards. Now, some of your issues with description pages are certainly valid to an extent. That's hardly proof that things are more complicated with Intel's CPU and socket compatibility compared to AMD. With Intel, you just pair shit up and look for the socket information. On the AMD side, you have to make sure you have a BIOS that supports the microcode of the CPU you want to use and ensure that the TDP of the CPU is supported by the motherboard. Even then, being stuck to a legacy platform creates it's own issues you simply don't have on the Intel side. With AMD, you might have to borrow an older processor from someone if you bought a CPU that your motherboard doesn't support with it's original shipping BIOS.
     
  12. Aluminum

    Aluminum Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    250
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2015
    I normally stay out of shit like this but are you going to pretend that X79 and X99 didn't have the exact same cpu/bios chicken and egg problem with Ivy-E and Broadwell-E?
    Because I sure do remember microcenter and newegg shipping NIB mobos during new arch launch that were not updated for months, my local MC literally had ZERO X79 boards with an Ivy-E compatible bios the first two weeks.
    I vaguely recall some similar Z87/Z97 microcode crap with some cpus too.
     
  13. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ardOCP Motherboard Editor

    Messages:
    51,217
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    That's a good question. The answer is two fold: 1.) Specifically with X79 and X99, I don't recall any cases where you had to have the updated BIOS for the system to even POST. I'm not saying that never happened, but I don't remember it. 2) X79 and X99 were all in the HEDT market segment. This is a segment where costs are less of an issue for manufacturers. Specifically, parts in that segment would often include a special IC which supports BIOS flashing without even having a CPU or RAM installed. ASUS started this much earlier than anyone else but GIGABYTE, MSI and others do it too. I know ASUS allowed this way back then. It may be more recent for MSI, GIGABYTE and everyone else. Again, I'm not saying these issues never happened, but AMD's socket history has far more instances of motherboards that simply wouldn't POST without using an older CPU to update the BIOS first. You never had issues of motherboard VRM's not supporting the TDP of newer and more powerful CPU's on the Intel side. They too have had that issue, even on Intel's own motherboards but I haven't seen that since the socket 478 days and again, far less than I have on the AMD side where it's been a definite problem time and time again.

    So no, I'm not going to pretend Intel has never had the "chicken or the egg" problem as you put it. What I am saying is that AMD's excessively long socket cycles make this problem far worse than it is on Intel's side.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2017
  14. {NG}Fidel

    {NG}Fidel [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,773
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    That's where I'm at right now too.
     
  15. dmoney1980

    dmoney1980 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    453
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2011
    I was lucky to snag a x99 based system on Craigslist for cheap. 5930k, asrock x6, 32gb ddr4 2400 ram, and a 1080 for $650. Love the setup as I game at 1440p/ 144hz gsync.I kept everything at stock speed and I have no reason to upgrade for a while as I'm not going to be CPU or GPU limited until I Upgrade to 4K and games become more thread/ hz dependant.

    Could I squeeze out a few more FPS with a faster IPC and clock speed? Sure, but it's not something I'll notice and not worth the cost for me.
     
  16. dpoverlord

    dpoverlord [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,565
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Thats an amazing deal! Congrats! WoW!

    My friend is debating on his z75 vs a newer system. Personally I really love my x99 would be great if the newer chips still worked!
     
  17. dmoney1980

    dmoney1980 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    453
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2011
    Pure luck on my part there! I do love the x99 platform and do think it will be suitable for a while, especially since it does support DDR4, NVME and relatively fast USB3 chipsets.
    I just hope motherboard stock doesn't dry up, so I'm actually planning to look at deals on x99 boards to get a spare.