![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Which would be better for gaming on x299?
- Thread starter Nirad9er
- Start date
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,136
You will see almost zero real world improvement outside of very specific titles.
What are you playing that the current setup isn't handling?
What are you playing that the current setup isn't handling?
My current setup obviously handles everything fine however I'd like a more modern chipset, features, and a more future proof system that I can upgrade over the next several years. My setup has hit a dead end.
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,136
I'd strongly recommend holding out and waiting for whatever's after X299. It's looking like a train wreck of a platform.
In what ways?
I would estimate DDR4 4000 CL 19-21-21-41
Plenty people do a lot of wrong stuff. It does not make it more or less correct that plenty of people are doing it
Also there is a difference between using 8 cores and benefiting from it... especially considering you might be pulling money away from other more important parts. You system is well a system. you need to look entire build before we can really see the benefits of X299 or not for gamming.
that goes for ppl both side of the fence here.
Plenty of people call the tower a harddrive. Plenty of people says a CPU has threads.
Plenty people do a lot of wrong stuff. It does not make it more or less correct that plenty of people are doing it
Also there is a difference between using 8 cores and benefiting from it... especially considering you might be pulling money away from other more important parts. You system is well a system. you need to look entire build before we can really see the benefits of X299 or not for gamming.
that goes for ppl both side of the fence here.
D
Deleted member 72990
Guest
Just answer his question instead of getting into a pissing match.
Well technically the fastest kit would be "better for gaming" but there are plenty of other factors, especially with memory prices being what they are.
What games are you playing? What resolution? What GPU?
If you're already rocking a 1080ti and are playing memory sensitive games like Arma III at 1440p or 4k... you'll see a pretty decent bump between 3200mhz and 4000mhz (the benchmarks I've seen put it at +7fps average framerate). Most games aren't going to be that dramatic, probably closer to 4 or 5 fps difference. If budget is an issue (and you don't already have the best of everything else) the money you'd spend moving from a 3200mhz kit to a 4000mhz kit would get you more fps spent elsewhere.
What games are you playing? What resolution? What GPU?
If you're already rocking a 1080ti and are playing memory sensitive games like Arma III at 1440p or 4k... you'll see a pretty decent bump between 3200mhz and 4000mhz (the benchmarks I've seen put it at +7fps average framerate). Most games aren't going to be that dramatic, probably closer to 4 or 5 fps difference. If budget is an issue (and you don't already have the best of everything else) the money you'd spend moving from a 3200mhz kit to a 4000mhz kit would get you more fps spent elsewhere.
Increasing frequency gives a increase to bandwidth and if timings remain the same latency also reduces where as tightening timings mostly just reduces latency
You can roughly estimate performance between kits by
3000 divided by 12 = 250
3200 divided by 14 = 228
3600 divided by 17 = 211
2866 divided by 16 = 241
4000 divided by 19 = 210
4000 divided by 17 = 235
higher the better
But actual performance may lean one way more than the other depending on both the platform and the software
Now these tests are on 6700k which benefits from both increased bandwidth and reduced latency
X299 on the other hand already has ample bandwidth thanks to quad channel memory but this also increases it latency
So the gains on it will be smaller than what im about to show and may lean a little more towards lower timings being of benefit that increased frequency
These first two games are cpu bound and like most said games very sensitive to memory speed
I do know of one exception though and that is crysis 3 which seems to have its caching very well optimized and benefits more from cpu clock speed increase than ram speed
This one however cares more about gpu speed than cpu speed so it doesn't care much for ram speed (as the gpu has its own memory) which is the case for most games out there today unless your aiming for 240fps 1080p with a 1080ti or two as this may move the limit back to the cpu in a few more games
Those tests are from here if you want more details on the test system and the tests
http://www.overclock.net/t/1611359/...3-1600c11-2133c9-ddr4-2133c15-3000c12-4000c17
The reason most cpu benchmarks dont see much gain from ram speed while games do is it comes down to how much of the data the cpu is processing isn't waiting for it in a cache and thus the cpu must wait for it to come from the ram
Open word games seem to be particularly difficult to predict what the cpu will need in its cache so they seem to benefit more than others
So hopefully that gives you some idea of what to expect im afraid nobody can say for sure which will be better for you on a new platform that nobody has done much testing on yet
You can roughly estimate performance between kits by
3000 divided by 12 = 250
3200 divided by 14 = 228
3600 divided by 17 = 211
2866 divided by 16 = 241
4000 divided by 19 = 210
4000 divided by 17 = 235
higher the better
But actual performance may lean one way more than the other depending on both the platform and the software
Now these tests are on 6700k which benefits from both increased bandwidth and reduced latency
X299 on the other hand already has ample bandwidth thanks to quad channel memory but this also increases it latency
So the gains on it will be smaller than what im about to show and may lean a little more towards lower timings being of benefit that increased frequency
These first two games are cpu bound and like most said games very sensitive to memory speed
I do know of one exception though and that is crysis 3 which seems to have its caching very well optimized and benefits more from cpu clock speed increase than ram speed
This one however cares more about gpu speed than cpu speed so it doesn't care much for ram speed (as the gpu has its own memory) which is the case for most games out there today unless your aiming for 240fps 1080p with a 1080ti or two as this may move the limit back to the cpu in a few more games
Those tests are from here if you want more details on the test system and the tests
http://www.overclock.net/t/1611359/...3-1600c11-2133c9-ddr4-2133c15-3000c12-4000c17
The reason most cpu benchmarks dont see much gain from ram speed while games do is it comes down to how much of the data the cpu is processing isn't waiting for it in a cache and thus the cpu must wait for it to come from the ram
Open word games seem to be particularly difficult to predict what the cpu will need in its cache so they seem to benefit more than others
So hopefully that gives you some idea of what to expect im afraid nobody can say for sure which will be better for you on a new platform that nobody has done much testing on yet
oldmanbal
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,613
It was mentioned earlier but you're not going to see any performance improvement for gaming buying that chipset now or anytime in the next few years. I'd say either bump up your gfx card, or if you already have a 1080ti, then wait buy a better display.