![]() ![]() I may be biased, but not pointing out how Intel boards with similar features and on DDR5(not the cheaper DDR4 versions) are only cheaper because Intel is willing to give away chipsets at this point.I agree with some of your statements. Add a x16 slot with PCIe 5.0, and that adds to the prices. PCI Express 5.0 support for example.a single PCIe 5.0 M.2 slot would be normal, and you will get it from all of the AM5 motherboards. Motherboards aren't really all that much more expensive than what came out for previous generations, outside of the boards that have far too many features or just add things that will cost a lot. I may be biased, but not pointing out how Intel boards with similar features and on DDR5(not the cheaper DDR4 versions) are only cheaper because Intel is willing to give away chipsets at this point.ĭdcservices said:Yet more nonsense in a supposedly unbiased review. DDR4-3600CL14, what's the real price difference? Not really enough to complain about. ![]() RAM, don't compare DDR4-3000 to DDR5-6000 for price, because that's not a fair comparison. The pure gaming performance people will be happy with older AM4 for this generation and the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, but for those who do more than play games, honestly, motherboard+CPU+RAM all at the same time, CPU prices are NOT at a premium compared to previous generations, motherboards are generally at a comparable price, outside of a lack of cheap/low end boards that have no features, and B650 will cover that for the most part. So, "pricing problem" seems to be more about an Intel bias, because other than, "it's new and hasn't been discounted". So, no reason to complain about prices.ĭDR5.$70 more than good DDR4 memory, compare the price of DDR4-3600 to DDR5-6000, yea, a bit of a price premium for DDR5, but it's new, and DDR5 prices are NOT really horrible. The ASRock boards are NOT overpriced, and many of the other motherboards aren't overpriced really. So, beyond this, boards like the Asus 圆70e Hero for $700.three M.2 slots with PCIe 5.0 speeds, the number of ports, this and that.yep, excessive, but the number of PCIe 5.0 slots are going to do that, along with Asus just charging a lot. Yet more nonsense in a supposedly unbiased review. The Zen 4 architecture delivers impressive performance in both workloads, reducing the disparities. Ryzen has long had an uneven performance in compression/decompression workloads, with decompression being a strength while compression suffered compared to other chips. The generational performance improvement is also readily apparent compared to the Ryzen 9 5900X. Spreading the workload out among the cores in the threaded portion of the y-cruncher test reduces the magnitude of the lead over Intel (per-core memory throughput and/or fabric throughput are likely barriers here), but the Ryzen 9 7900X leads over Alder Lake. We employed the latest version of y-cruncher that has added support for Zen 4, and here we can see the benefits of AVX-512 become apparent in the single-threaded benchmark. Y-cruncher computes Pi with the AVX instruction set, making for an exceedingly demanding benchmark. This selection of tests runs the gamut from the exceedingly branchy code in the LLVM compilation workload to the massively parallel molecular dynamics simulation code in NAMD to encryption and compression/decompression performance. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |